Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

Latest revision as of 12:37, 30 September 2021

Imagine...

You are about to board a bus for a long night ride, when you notice the flickering streaks of light emanating from two wax candles, placed where the headlights of the bus are expected to be. Candles? As headlights?

Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it?

Because on a much larger scale this absurdity has become reality.

The Modernity ideogram renders the essence of our contemporary situation by depicting our society as an accelerating bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it as guided by a pair of candle headlights.

Modernity ideogram

Our proposal

Its essence

The core of our proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.

What is our relationship with information presently like?

Here is how Neil Postman described it:

"The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."

Neil Postman

Its substance

What would our handling of information be like, if we treated it as we treat other human-made things—if we took advantage of our best knowledge and technology, and adapted it to the purposes that need to be served?

By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would information be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted and applied? What would public informing be like? And academic communication, and education?

The substance of our proposal is a complete prototype of the handling of information we are proposing—by which initial answers to relevant questions are given, and in part implemented in practice.

We call the proposed approach to information knowledge federation when we want to point to the activity that distinguishes it from the common practices. We federate knowledge when we make what we "know" information-based; when we examine, select and combine all potentially relevant resources. When also the way in which we handle information is federated.

The purpose of knowledge federation is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.

Like architecture and design, knowledge federation is both an organized set of activities, and an academic field that develops them.

Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop knowledge federation as an academic field and real-life praxis (informed practice).

Its method

We refer to our proposal as holoscope when we want to emphasize the difference it can make.

The purpose of the holoscope is to help us see things whole.

Holoscope ideogram

We use the Holoscope ideogram to point to this purpose. The ideogram draws on the metaphor of inspecting a hand-held cup, in order to see whether it is broken or whole. We inspect a cup by choosing the way we look; and by looking at all sides.

While the characteristics of the holoscope—the design choices or design patterns, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation, one of them must be made clear from the start.

In the holoscope, the legitimacy of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.

The ways of looking are called scopes. The scopes and the resulting views have similar role and meaning as projections do in technical drawing.

This modernization of our handling of information, distinguished by purposeful, free and informed choice or creation of the way we look at the world, has become necessary, suggests the Modernity ideogram. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with the conventional ones.

To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of scopes, we used the scientific method as venture point, and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy.

Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention. The holoscope is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see any chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in proportion.

A way of looking or scope—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct assessment of an object of study or situation—is a new kind of result that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the holoscope.

We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something is as stated, that X is Y—although it would be more accurate to say that X can or needs to be perceived (also) as Y. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered scope); and to do that collectively and collaboratively, in a dialog.

A vision

A difference to be made

Suppose we used the holoscope as 'headlights'; what difference would that make?

The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in provided us a benchmark challenge for putting our proposal to a test.

Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—Aurelio Peccei issued the following call to action:

"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."

Peccei also specified what needed to be done to "change course":

"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."

Aurelio Peccei

This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology".

In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:

"Let me recapitulate what seems to me the crucial question at this point of the human venture. Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it. However, the business of human life has become so complicated that he is culturally unprepared even to understand his new position clearly. As a consequence, his current predicament is not only worsening but, with the accelerated tempo of events, may become decidedly catastrophic in a not too distant future. The downward trend of human fortunes can be countered and reversed only by the advent of a new humanism essentially based on and aiming at man’s cultural development, that is, a substantial improvement in human quality throughout the world."

The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".

A different way to see the future

Holotopia is a vision of a future that becomes accessible when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.

Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. In view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.

As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" were offered as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.

The holotopia is different in spirit from them all. It is more attractive than the futures the utopias projected—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not exist. And yet the holotopia is readily attainable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.

The holotopia vision is made concrete in terms of five insights.

Five insights

Five Insights ideogram

The five insights resulted when we applied the holoscope to illuminate five pivotal themes; "pivotal" because they determine the "course":

Innovation—the way we use our growing ability to create, and induce change
Communication—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled
Foundation—the fundamental assumptions based on which truth and meaning are socially constructed; which serve as foundation to the edifice of culture; which determine the relationship we have with information
Method—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life; or the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it
Values—the way we "pursue happiness"; or choose "course"

In each case, when we 'connected the dots' (combined the available insights to reach a general one), we were able to identify a large structural defect. We demonstrated practical ways, partly implemented as prototypes, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We showed that such structural interventions lead to benefits that are well beyond curing problems.

The five insights establish an analogy between the comprehensive change that was germinating in Galilei's time, and what is in store for us now.

Power structure insight (analogy with Industrial Revolution)

We looked at the systems in which we live and work as gigantic socio-technical 'mechanisms'—which determine how we live and work; and what the effects of our efforts will be.

When "free competition" or the market controls our growing capability to create and induce change, the systems in which we live and work evolve as power structures—and we lose the ability to steer a viable course. A dramatic improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of human work, and of the human condition at large, can result from systemic innovation, where we innovate by making things whole on the large scale, where socio-technical systems or institutions are made whole.

Collective mind insight (analogy with Gutenberg Revolution)

We looked at the social process by which information is handled.

Hear Neil Postman observe:

“We’ve entered an age of information glut. And this is something no culture has really faced before. The typical situation is information scarcity. (…) Lack of information can be very dangerous. (…) But at the same time too much information can be dangerous, because it can lead to a situation of meaninglessness, of people not having any basis for knowing what is relevant, what is irrelevant, what is useful, what is not useful, where they live in a culture that is simply committed, through all of its media, to generate tons of information every hour, without categorizing it in any way for you.”

We saw that the new media technology is still being used to make the social process that the printing press made possible (publishing or broadcasting) more efficient; which breeds glut! In spite of the fact that core elements of the new technology have been created to enable a different social process—whose results are function and meaning; where technology enables us to think and create together, as cells in a single mind do.

Socialized reality insight (analogy with Enlightenment)

We looked at the foundation on which truth and meaning are socially constructed, which we also call epistemology. It was the epistemology change—from the rigidly held Biblical worldview of Galilei's prosecutors—that made the Enlightenment possible; that triggered comprehensive change.

We saw that a similar fundamental change, with similar consequences, is now mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds.

Narrow frame insight (analogy with Scientific Revolution)

We looked at the method by which truth and meaning are socially constructed.

Science eradicated prejudice and expanded our knowledge—where the methods and interests of its disciplines could be applied. We showed how to extend the scientific approach to knowledge, to questions we need to answer.

Convenience paradox insight (analogy with Renaissance)

We looked at the values that determine the way we "pursue happiness"; and our society's "course".

We showed that when proper 'light' illuminates the 'way'—our choices and pursuits will be entirely different.

Large change is easy

The "course" is a paradigm

The changes the five insights are pointing to are inextricably co-dependent.

We cannot, for instance, replace 'candles' with 'lightbulbs' (as the collective mind insight demands), unless systemic innovation (demanded by the power structure insight) is in place. And without having a general-purpose method for creating insights (which dissolves the narrow frame). We will remain unknowing victims of the convenience paradox, as long as we use 'candles' to illuminate the way.

We cannot make any of the required changes without making them all.

We may use Wiener's keyword "homeostasis" negatively—to point to the undesirable property of systems to maintain a course, even when the course is destructive. The system springs back, it nullifies attempted change.

It is because of this property of our global system that comprehensive change can be easy—even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may be impossible.

"A way to change course" is in academia's hands

Paradigm changes, however, have an inherent logic and way they need to proceed.

A "disease" is a living system's stable pathological condition. And we only call that a "remedy" which has the power to flip the system out of that condition. In systems terms, a remedy of that kind, a true remedy, is called "systemic leverage point". And when a social system is to be 'healed', then the most powerful "leverage point" is "the mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise"; and we must seek to restore "the power to transcend paradigms", as the Donella Meadows pointed out.

By changing the relationship we have with information, we restore to our society its power to transcend its present paradigm.

That simple change, the five insights showed, will trigger all other requisite changes follow. We abolish reification—of worldviews and institutions in general, and of journalism, science and other inherited ways of looking at the world in particular—and we instantly see the imperative of changing them by adapting them to the purposes that must be served.

Furthermore, as the socialized reality insight showed, this change is mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds. It follows as a logical consequence of what we already "know".

This "way to change course" should be particularly easy because—being a fundamental change—it is entirely in control of publicly sponsored intellectuals, the academia.

We don't need to occupy Wall Street.

The university, not the Wall Street, controls the systemic leverage point par excellence.

And for us who are in academic positions already, who are called upon to make this timely change—there is nothing we need to occupy. What we must do to "change course" is demanded by our occupation already.

"Human quality" is the key

But what about culture? What about the "human quality", which, as we have seen, Aurelio Peccei considered to be the key to reversing our condition?

On the morning of March 14, 1984, the day he passed away, Peccei dictated to his secretary from a hospital bed (as part of "Agenda for the End of the Century"):

"Human development is the most important goal."

We can put this "humanistic" perspective on our map by looking at it in the "evolutionary" way, as Erich Jantsch suggested. Jantsch explained this way of looking through the metaphor of a boat (representing a system, which may be the natural world, or our civilization) on a river. The traditional science would position us above the boat, and have us look at it "objectively". The traditional systems science would position us on the boat, to seek ways to steer it effectively and safely. The "evolutionary" perspective invites us to see ourselves as—water. To acknowledge that we are the evolution!

By determining how we are as 'water', the "human quality" determines our evolutionary course.

The power structure insight showed that when we navigate the evolutionary stream by aiming to advance "our own" position—we unavoidably become part of the power structure; we create the systems that create problems.

To put our two pivotal themes together, notice that changing the relationship we have with information should be dramatically easier for us than it was in Galilei's time—when it meant risking one's life or worse. The academia, not the Inquisition, is in change. But here's the rub: By being in charge, the academia is also part of the power structure!

To see what this means practically and concretely, follow us through a thought experiment: Imagine that an academic administrator, let's call him Professor X, has just received a knowledge federation proposal. (We say "a" proposal, because proposals of this kind were advanced well before we were born.) What would be his reaction?

When we did this thought experiment, Professor X moved on to his next chore without ado.

We have an amusing collection of anecdotes to support that prognosis. And anyhow, why would Professor X invest time in comprehending a proposal of this kind, when he knows right away, when his body knows (see the socialized reality insight), that his colleagues won't like it. When there is obviously nothing to be gained from it.

At the university too we make decisions by "instrumental thinking"; by taking recourse to embodied knowledge of "what works".

We have seen (while developing the power structure insight) that this ethos breeds the power structure; that it binds us to power structure.

This ethos is blatantly un-academic.

If Galilei followed it, the Inquisition would still be in charge; if Socrates did that, there would be no academia.

The academic tradition was conceived as a radical alternative to this way of making choices—where we develop and use ideas as guiding light.

So was knowledge federation.

We coined several keywords to point to some of the ironic sides of academia's situation—as food for thought, and to set the stage for the academic dialog in front of the mirror.

From Newton we adapted the keyword giant, and use it for visionary thinkers whose ideas must be woven together to see the emerging paradigm (Newton reportedly "stood on the shoulders of giants" to "see further"). But as our anecdotes illustrate, the giants have in recent decades been routinely ignored. Is it because the academic 'turf' is minutely divided? Because a giant would take too much space?

From Johan Huizinga we adapted the keyword homo ludens, and use it to point out that (as we saw while discussing the socialized reality insight) we are biologically equipped for two kinds of knowing and evolving. The homo ludens in us does not seek guidance in the knowledge of ideas and principles; it suffices him to learn his social roles, as one would learn the rules of a game. The homo ludens does not need to to comprehend the world; it's the ontological security he finds comfort in.

We addressed our proposal to academia, which we defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". It goes without saying that the academic tradition's all-important role has been to keep us on the homo sapiens track. But as we have seen, the power structure ecology has the power to sidetrack institutional evolution toward the homo ludens devious course.

The question must be asked:

Does the academic institution's own ecology avoid this problem?

A strategy

We will not solve our problems

A role of the holotopia vision is to fulfill what Margaret Mead identified as "one necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence" (in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964—four years before The Club of Rome was founded):

"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."

More concretely, we undertake to respond to this Mead's critical point:

"Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."

We, however, do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us" can be solved".

Margaret Mead

Hear Dennis Meadows (who coordinated the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report "Limits to Growth") diagnose, recently, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" that The Club of Rome was warning us about back then:

"Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent above sustainable levels."

We wasted precious time pursuing a dream; hear Ronald Reagan set the tone for it, when he was "the leader of the free world".

A sense of sobering up, and of catharsis, needs to reach us from the depth of our problems.

Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time.

Our very "progress" must acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction. Hear Dennis Meadows say:

"Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you change your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."

Ironically, our problems can only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as symptoms of much deeper cultural and structural defects.

The five insights show that the structural problems now confronting us can be solved.

The holotopia offers more than "an atmosphere of hope". It points to an attainable future that is strictly better than our present.

And it offers to change our condition now—by engaging us in an unprecedentedly large and magnificent creative adventure.

Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):

For some time now, the perception of (our responsibilities relative to "problematique") has motivated a number of organizations and small voluntary groups of concerned citizens which have mushroomed all over to respond to the demands of new situations or to change whatever is not going right in society. These groups are now legion. They arose sporadically on the most variend fronts and with different aims. They comprise peace movements, supporters of national liberation, and advocates of women's rights and population control; defenders of minorities, human rights and civil liberties; apostles of "technology with a human face" and the humanization of work; social workers and activists for social change; ecologists, friends of the Earth or of animals; defenders of consumer rights; non-violent protesters; conscientious objectors, and many others. These groups are usually small but, should the occasion arise, they can mobilize a host of men and women, young and old, inspired by a profound sense of te common good and by moral obligations which, in their eyes, are more important than all others.

They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.

Diversity is good and useful, especially in times of change. Systems scientists coined the keyword "requisite variety" to point out that a variety of possible responses make a system viable, or "sustainable".

The risk is, however, that the actions of "small voluntary groups of concerned citizens" may remain reactive.

From Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword symbolic action, to make that risk clear. We engage in symbolic action when we act within the limits of the socialized reality and the power structure—in ways that make us feel that we've done our duty. We join a demonstration; or an academic conference. But symbolic action can only have symbolic effects!

We have seen that comprehensive change must be our goal.

It is to that strategic goal that the holotopia vision is pointing.

By supplementing this larger strategy, we neither deny that the problems we are facing must be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.

The Holotopia project complements the problem-based approaches—by adding what is systemically lacking to make solutions possible.

We will not change the world

Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, holotopia is a trans-generational construction project.

Our generation's job is to begin it.

Margaret Mead left us this encouragement:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Mead explained what exactly distinguishes a small group of people that is capable of making a large difference:

"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, but the small group of interacting individuals who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."

Sagrada Familia (for the moment we are borrowing this beautiful photo from the Web)

This capability—to self-organize and do something because it's right, because it has to be done—is where "human quality" is needed. That's what we've been lacking.

The five insights showed that again and again. Our stories were deliberately chosen to be a half-century old—and demonstrate that "the appropriately gifted" have offered us their gifts. But that "the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution" have been absent.

It is not difficult to see that our culture's systemic ecology is to blame. As this excerpt from the animated film "The Incredibles" might illustrate, it gives us power only if we consent to make ourselves small, and be "well-lubricated cogs" in an institutional clockwork.

We must claim back our will to make a difference.

By writing the "Animal Farm" allegory, George Orwell pointed to a pattern that foiled humanity's attempts at change: By engaging in turf strife, revolutions tended to reproduce the conditions they aimed to change.

Holotopia institutes an ecology that is a radical alternative to turf strife.

While we'll use all creative means at our disposal to disclose turf behavior, we will self-organize to prevent ourselves from engaging in it.

The Holotopia project will not try to engineer its "success" by adapting to "the survival of fittest" ecology. On the contrary—we will engineer the change of that ecology, by accentuating our differences.

We know from chemistry that a crystal submerged in a solution of the same substance will make the substance crystallize according to its shape. Our strategy is to be that 'crystal'.

We build on the legacy of Gandhi's "satyagraha" (adherence to truth), and non-violently yet firmly uphold the truth that change is everyone's imperative. Our strategy is to empower everyone to make the change; and be the change.

Holotopia will not grow by "push", but by "pull".

We will not change the world.

You will.

A mission

Centuries ago a philosopher portrayed the human condition by telling a parable. He proposed to imagine us humans chained in a cave, able to look only at the wall of the cave where a projection of shadows is at play. He in this way portrayed what we dubbed socialized reality—that we live in a "reality" shaped by power play and calcified perception.

He pointed to development of ideas as the way to liberate ourselves.

The five insights showed that we are still in the 'cave'.

And how we can liberate ourselves once for all!

"A great cultural revival"—a change of evolutionary course that will lead to comprehensive improvement of our condition—is ready to begin as an academic revival; just as in Galilei's time.

When we say that the university needs to make structural changes within itself, and guide our society in a new phase of evolution, we are not saying anything new. We are echoing what others have said.

But the tie between information and action being severed—calls to action of this kind remained without effect.

Our mission is to change that.

We implement this mission in two steps.

Step 1: Enabling academic evolution

The first step is to institutionalize knowledge federation as an academic field. This step is made actionable by a complete prototype—which includes all that constitutes an academic field, from an epistemology to a community.

The purpose of knowledge federation is to enable systems to evolve knowledge-based.

Knowledge work systems to begin with.

By reconfiguring academic work on design epistemology as foundation, knowledge federation fosters an academic space where creativity can be applied and careers can be pursued by creating knowledge work. By changing our collective mind.

This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Doug Engelbart and Erich Jantsch.

Step 2: Enabling societal evolution

The second step is to further develop and implement the holotopia vision in real life.

By offering an attractive future vision, and a feedback structure around it to update it continuously; and by making tactical steps toward the realization of this vision—we restore to our society the faculty of vision; and the ability to "change course".

This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Margaret Mead and Aurelio Peccei.

The Holotopia project is conceived as a collaborative strategy game, where we make tactical moves toward the holotopia vision.

We make this 'game' smooth and awesome by supplementing a collection of tactical assets.

Art

Holotopia is an art project.

Where "art" is a way of being, not a profession.

The transformative space created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.

The idea of "a great cultural revival" brings to mind the image of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of an old order of things manifesting a new one. When Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged the traditional limits of what art is and may be.

The deconstruction of the tradition has been completed, and it is time to create.

What memes need to be fostered, and disseminated?

In what ways will art be present on the creative frontier where the new "great cultural revivival" will enfold?

In "Production of Space" Henri Lefebvre offered an answer, which we'll summarize in holotopia's buddying vernacular.

The crux of our problem, Lefebvre observed, is that past activity (historical 'turf strifes' calcified as power structure) keeps us in check. "What is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to reverse that.

"But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity."

Holotopia project is a space and a production of spaces, where what is alive in us can overcome what makes us dead.

Where in the artist as retort, new ways to feel, think and act are created.

Five insights

Holotopia's creative space is spanned by five insights.

The pentagram, which represents the five insights, lends itself to artistic interpretations.

Creation takes place in the context of the five insights. That makes holotopia's creative acts knowledge based.

Like five pillars, the five insights lifts up the Holotopia prototype as creative space, from what socialized reality might allow. We see "reality" differently in that space; we learn to perceive reification as a problem, which made us willing slaves to institutions. We no longer buy into the self-image and values that the power structure gave us.

Art meets science in that space; and curated knowledge in general. Not for a visit, but to live and work together. By sharing five insights, science tells art "Here is how far I've gotten; here is where you take over."

The five insights are a prototype—of a minimal collection of insight that can overturn the paradigm. With provision to evolve continuously—and reflect what we know collectively.

The five insights bring to the fore what is most transformative in our collective knowledge.

The mirror

The mirror is the entrance to holotopia.

Mirror prototypes in Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.

As these snapshots might illustrate, the mirror is an object that lends itself to endless artistic creations. And it is also an inexhaustible source of metaphors. One of them, or perhaps a common name for them, is self-reflection.

It is through genuine self-reflection and self-reflective dialog that holotopia can be reached.

We are contemplating to honor this fact by adopting holotopia hypothesis as keyword. Not because it is hypothetical (it is not!), but to encourage us all to have a certain attitude when entering holotopia. We are well aware that "the society" has problems. The key here is to see ourselves as products of that society. Let the mirror symbolize the self-reflection we willingly undergo, to become able to co-create a better society.

As always, we enter a new reality by looking at the world differently; this time it is by putting ourselves into the picture.

"Know thyself" has always been the battle cry of humanity's teachers. The mirror teaches us that our ideas, our emotional responses and our desires and preferences are not objectively given. That they take shape inside of us—as consequences of living in a culture.

The mirror is a symbol of cultural revival.

The convenience paradox insight showed that we can radically improve the way we feel; and the way we are. And that this can only be achieved through long-term cultivation.

The mirror is also a symbol of academic revival.

It invites the academia to revive its ethos through self-reflective dialog. To see itself in the world, and adapt to its role. And to then liberate the oppressed, which we all are, from reification and its consequences—by leading us through the mirror.

The dialog

The dialog is holotopia's signature approach to communication.

The philosopher who saw us as chained in a cave used the dialog as way to freedom. Since then this technique has been continuously evolving.

David Bohm gave this evolutionary stream a new direction, by turning the dialog into an antidote to 'turf strife'. Instead of wanting to impose our "reality" on others, Bohm insisted, we must use "proprioception" (mindfully watch ourselves) and inhibit such desires.

Isn't this what the mirror too demands?

A whole new stream of development was initiated by Kunst and Rittel, who proposed "issue-based information systems" in the 1960s, as a way to tackle the "wickedness" of complex contemporary issues. Jeff Conklin later showed how such tools can be used to transform collective communication into a collaborative dialog, through "dialog mapping". Baldwin and Price extended this approach online, and already transformed parts of our global mind through Debategraph.

The dialog changes the world by changing the way we communicate.

The theory and the ethos of dialog can furthermore be combined by situation design and artful camera work—to phase out turf behavior completely. This four-minute digest of the 2020 US first presidential debate will remind us that the dialog is not part of our political discourse. This subtler example shows the turf behavior that thwarted The Club of Rome's efforts: The homo ludens will say whatever might serve to win an argument; and with a confident smile! He knows that his "truth" suits the power structure—and therefore will prevail.

To point to the dialog's further tactical possibilities, we contemplate adapting "reality show" as keyword. When the dialog brings us together to daringly create, we see a new social reality emerge. When it doesn't, we witness the grip that socialized reality has on us.

Keywords

Keywords enable us to speak and think in new ways.

A warning reaches us from sociology.

Beck explained:

"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of categories and basic assumptions of classical social, cultural and political sciences."

Imagine us in this "iron cage", compelled, like mythical King Oedipus, to draw closer to a tragic destiny as we do our best to avoid it—by the "categories and basic assumptions" that have been handed down to us.

We offered truth by convention and creation of keywords as a way out of "iron cage".

While we've been seeing examples all along, we here share three more—to illustrate the exodus.

Culture

In "Culture as Praxis", Zygmunt Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and concluded that they are too diverse to be reconciled.

We do not know what "culture" means.

Not a good venture point for developing culture as praxis!

We defined culture as "cultivation of wholeness"; and cultivation by analogy with planting and watering a seed—in accord with the etymology of that word.

In that way we created a specific way of looking at culture—which reveals where 'the cup is broken'; and where enormous progress can be made. As no amount of dissecting and analyzing a seed will suggest that it should be planted and watered, so does the narrow frame obscure from us the benefits that the culture can provide. As the cultivation of land does, the cultivation of human wholeness too requires that subtle cultural practices be phenomenologically understood; and integrated in our culture.

Holotopia will distill the essences of human cultivation from the world traditions—and infuse them into a functional post-traditional culture.

Our definition of culture points to the analogy that Béla H. Bánáthy brought up in "Guided Evolution of Society"—between the Agricultural Revolution that took place about twelve thousand years ago, and the social and cultural revolution that is germinating in our time. In this former revolution, Bánáthy explained, our distant ancestors learned to consciously take care of their biophysical environment, by cultivating land. We will now learn to cultivate our social environment.

There is, however, a point where this analogy breaks down: While the cultivation of land yields results that everyone can see, the results of human cultivation are hidden within. They can only be seen by those who have already benefited from it.

The benefits of a functioning culture could be prodigious—without us seeing that.

This is why communication is so central to holotopia.

This is why we must step through the mirror to come in.

Addiction

The traditions identified activities such as gambling, and things such as opiates as addictions. But selling addictions is a lucrative business. What will hinder businesses from using new technologies to create new addictions?

By defining addiction as a pattern, we made it possible to identify it as an aspect of otherwise useful activities and things.

To make ourselves and our culture whole, even subtle addiction must be taken care of.

The convenience paradox insight showed that convenience is a general addiction; and the root of innumerable specific ones.

We defined pseudoconsciousness as "addiction to information". To be conscious of one's situation is, of course, a genuine need and part of our wholeness. But consciousness can be drowned in images, facts and data. We can have the sensation of knowing, without knowing what we really need to know.

Religion

In "Physics and Philosophy" Werner Heisenberg described some of the consequences of the narrow frame:

It was especially difficult to find in this framework room for those parts of reality tht had been the object of the traditional religion and seemed now more or less only imaginary. Therefore, in those European countries in which one was wont to follow the ideas up to their extreme consequences, and open hostility of science toward religion developed (...). Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind.

If you too were influenced by the narrow frame, consider our way of defining concepts as 'recycling'—as a way to give old words new meanings; as thereby restoring them to the function they need to have "in the post-traditional cosmopolitan world".

A role of religion in world traditions has been to connect an individual to an ethical ideal, and individuals together in a community. This role is pointed to by the etymological meaning of this concept, which is "re-connection".

What serves this role in modern culture?

We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined religion as "reconnection with the archetype". We further adapted Carl Jung's keyword, and defined archetype as whatever in our psychological makeup may compel us to transcend the narrow limits of self-interest; to overcome convenience. "Heroism", "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth" and "love" are examples.

Imagine a world where truth, love, beauty, justice... bind us to our purpose; and to each other!

But isn't religion a belief system? And an institution?

"The Agony and the Ecstasy" is Irving Stone's biographical novel and a film, where the agony and the ecstasy are what accompanied Michelangelo's creative process while painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling. And of course what accompanies a deep creative process of any kind. Pope Julius II appears in the story as he was—as "Warrior Pope". He, however, did exercise piety—by enabling Michelangelo to complete his work. Pope Julius created a space where the artist could deliver his gifts. Julius knew, and so did Michelangelo, that it is the artist that God speaks through.

Ten themes

The ten themes offer relevant and engaging things to talk about.

At the same time they illustrate how different our conversations will be, when 'the light' has been turned on.

We selected ten themes to prime and energize the dialogs. They correspond to the ten lines that join the five insights pairwise in a pentagram. Here are some highlights.

How to put an end to war?

What would it take to really put an end to war?

In the context of power structure and socialized reality, this conversation about the age-old theme is bound to be completely different from the ones we've had before.

The socialized reality insight allows us to recognize the war as an extreme case of the general dynamic it describes—where one person's ambition to expand "his" 'symbolic turf' is paid for with hacked human bodies, destroyed homes, and unthinkable suffering. This conversation may then focus on the various instruments of socialization (through which our duty, love, heroism, honor,... are appropriated), which have always been core elements of "culture". The socialized reality insight may then help us understand—and also deconstruct—the mechanism that makes the unlikely bargain of war possible.

The power structure insight illuminates the same scene from a different angle—where we see that the war's insane logic does make sense; that the war does make the power structure (kings and their armies; or the government contractors and the money landers) more powerful.

A look at a science fiction movie may show the limits of our imagination—which allow only the technology to advance. And keep culture and values on the "dark side"—although we've already past well beyond what such one-sided evolution can sustain.

The history too will need to be rewritten—and instead of talking about the kings and their "victories", tell us about sick ambition and suffering; and about the failed attempts to transform humanity's evolution.

Zero to one

This conversation is about education.

It is through the medium of education that a culture reproduces itself and evolves. Education is a systemic leverage point that holotopia must not overlook.

By placing it in the context of narrow frame and convenience paradox, we look at education from this specific angle:

Is education socializing us into an obsolete worldview?

What would education be like if it had human development as goal?

By giving it this title, "zero to one", we want to ask the question that Sir Ken Robison posed at TED:

Do schools kill creativity?

The title we borrowed from Peter Thiel, to look at this question from an angle that the holotopians are most interested in: We've been prodigiously creative in taking things 'from one to many' (improving things that already exist, and replicating them in large numbers); ye we are notoriously incapable of conceiving things that do not exist. But isn't that what changing a paradigm is about?

Is education making us unable to change course?

The most interesting question, in holotopia context, is about education's principle of operation. The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity prototype showed that creative imagination (the ability to constructs complex things that don't exist) seems to depend on a gradual, annealing-like process. What if the ability to comprehend complex things too demands that we let the mind construct?

Of course"pushing" information on students (instead of letting them acquire it through "pull") was the only way possible when information was scarce, and people had to come to a university to access it. But that is no longer the case! Hear Michael Wesch, and then join us in co-creating an answer to this pivotal question:

Is our education's very principle of operation obsolete?

Alienation

This theme offers a way to reconcile Karl Marx with "the 1%", and the radical left with Christianity.

By having the convenience paradox and the power structure insights as context, this theme allows us to understand that power play distanced all of us from wholeness.

Holotopia wins without fighting—by co-opting the powerful.

Enlightenment 2.0

By placing the conversation about the impending Enlightenment-like change in the context of the convenience paradox insight and the collective mind insight, two opportunities for transdisciplinary cross-fertilization are opened up.

One of them takes advantage of the media technology—to create media material that helps us "change course", by making the convenience paradox transparent.

The other one applies the insights about wholeness—to develop media use that supports wholeness.

Academia quo vadis?

This title is reserved for the academic self-reflective dialog in front of the mirror.

By placing that conversation between the socialized reality and the narrow frame, the imperative of academic transformation (that "the university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing society's capability for continuous self-renewal", as Erich Jantsch pointed out) is made transparent.

Is transdisciplinarity the university institution's future?

This conversation should not avoid to look at the humanistic side of its theme.

The homo ludens academicus is a subspecies whose existence is predicted by the theory advanced with the socialized reality insight, which contradicts the conventional wisdom. Its discovery—for which a genuine self-reflective dialog in front of the mirror could be a suitable experiment—would confirm the principle that the evolution of human systems must not be abandoned to "the survival of fittest". Then the university could create "a way to change course"—by making "structural changes with itself".

Two millennia ago, when the foundations of the Roman Empire were shaking, the Christian Church stepped into the role of an ethical guiding light.

Can the university enable our next ethical transformation—by liberating us from an antiquated way of comprehending the world?

Stories

The stories are a way to make insights accessible and clear.

These stories are vignettes. This in principle journalistic technique helps us render academic and other insights in a way that makes them palatable to public, and usable to artists and journalists. Being a meme, a vignette can do more than convey ideas.

We illustrate this technique by a single example, The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart.

The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart is a modern version of 'Galilei in house arrest'.

It shows who, or what, holds 'Galilei in house arrest' today.

As summarized in the article, Engelbart's contributions to the emerging paradigm were crucial. Erich Jantsch wrote:

"The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it. With technology having become the most powerful change agent in our society, decisive battles will be won or lost by the measure of how seriously we take the challenge of restructuring the “joint systems” of society and technology."

Engelbart contributed means to secure decisive victories in those "decisive battles".

Even more relevant and interesting is, however, what this story tells about ourselves.

As part of the mirror, The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart reflects what we must see and change about ourselves to be able to "change course".

The setting was like of an experiment: The Silicon Valley's giant in residence, already recognized and celebrated as that, offered the most innovative among us the ideas that would change the world.

We couldn't even hear him.

This 'experiment' showed how incredibly idea-blind we've become.

The elephant

The elephant points to a quantum leap in relevance and interest—when academic and other insights are presented in the context of "a great cultural revival".

Elephant ideogram

There is an "elephant in the room", waiting to be discovered.

The frontier thinkers have been touching him, and describing him excitedly in the jargon of their discipline. We heard them talk about "the fan", "the water hose" and "the tree trunk". But they didn't make sense and we ignored them.

This thoroughly changes when we realize that they described 'the ear', 'the trunk' and 'the leg' of an 'exotic animal'—which nobody has as yet seen!

We make it possible to 'connect the dots' and see the elephant.

By combining the elephant with design epistemology we offer a new notion of rigor to the study of cultural artifacts.

The structuralists attempted that in a different way. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts by successfully arguing that cultural artifacts have no "real meaning"; and making meanings open to interpretation.

We propose to consider cultural artifacts as 'dots' to be connected.

We don't, for instance, approach Bourdieu's theory by fitting it into a "reality picture". We adapt it as a piece in a completely new 'puzzle'.

Books and publishing

Book launches punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a dialog.

Does the book still have a future?

In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman (who founded "media ecology") left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" (to borrow Gregory Bateson's similarly potent idea) than the audio-visual media do: It gives us a chance to reflect.

We, however, embed the book in an 'ecosystem' of media. By publishing a book we 'break ice' and place a theme—which may or may not be one of our ten themes—into the focus of the public eye. We then let our collective mind digest and further develop the proposed ideas; and by doing that—develop itself!

In this way, a loop is closed through which an author's insights are improved by collective creativity and knowledge—leading, ultimately, to a new and better edition of the book.

Liberation

The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as the first in the series.

A metaphor may help us see why this particular theme and book are especially well suited as a tactical asset, for breaking ice and launching the holotopia dialogs. The recipe for a successful animated feature film is to make it for two audiences: the kids and the grownups. As the excerpt from The Incredibles we shared above might illustrate, the kids get the action; the grownups get the metaphors and the dialogs.

So it is with this book. To the media it offers material that rubs so hard against people's passions and beliefs that it can hardly be ignored. And to more mature audiences—it offers the holotopia meme.

The age-old conflict between science and religion is resolved by evolving both science and religion.

Prototypes

Prototypes federate insights by weaving them into the fabric of reality.

They

restore the connection between information and action, by creating a feedback loop through which information can impact systems
restore systemic wholeness, by sowing design patterns together

By rendering results of creative work as challenge—resolution pairs, design patterns make them adaptable to new applications. Each design pattern constitutes a discovery—of a specific way in which a system, and world at large, can be made more whole.

What difference would be made, if the principle "make things whole" guided innovation?

We point to an answer by these examples.

Education

The Collaborology 2016 educational prototype, to whose subject and purpose we pointed by this course flyer, exhibited solutions to a number of challenges that were repeatedly voiced by education innovators. In addition, its design patterns showed how education can be adapted to holotopia's purpose.

Most of Collaborology's design patterns were developed and tested within its precursor, University of Oslo Information Design course.

Education is flexible. In a fast-changing world, education cannot be a once-in-a-lifetime affair. And in a world that has to change, it cannot teach only traditional professions. In Collaborology, the students learn an emerging profession.

Learning is by "pull", by 'connecting the dots'.

The students learn what they need, when they need it.

Education is active. The course is conceived as a design project, where the students and the instructors co-create learning resources. Collaboration toward systemic wholeness is not only taught, but also practiced. Instead of only receiving knowledge, students become a component in a knowledge-work ecosystem —where they serve as 'bacteria', recycling 'nutrients' from academic 'deposits'.

Education is internationally federated. Collaborology is created and taught by an international network of instructors and designers, and offered to learners worldwide. An instructor creates a lecture, not a course.

Economies of scale result, which drastically reduce workload.

It becomes cost-effective to power learning by new technologies—why should only the game manufacturers use them?

Collaborology provides a sustainable business model for creating and disseminating transdisciplinary knowledge of any theme.

Re-design of education is technology enabled. The enabling technology is called the domain map object. It offers solutions to a number of challenges that designers of flexible education have to face:

structure the curriculum and organize the learning resources—in a manner that is not a linear sequence of lectures or book chapters
help the students orient themselves and create a personal learning plan—before they have taken the course
customize the exam—by displaying the student's learning trajectory

Educational model too is internationally federated. We developed close ties with Global Education Futures Initiative—"an international collaborative platform that brings together shapers and sherpas of global education to discuss and implement the necessary transformations of educational ecosystems for thrivable futures". Following their first international co-creative event in Palo Alto (where international reformers and theorists of education gathered to map the directions and challenges), we shared a one-day workshop in Mei Lin Fung's house, to coordinate our collaboration. In 2017, the Collaborology model was presented and discussed at the World Academy of Art and Science conference Future Education 2 in Rome. The Information Design course model, and the corresponding domain map (which was then called "polyscopic topic map") technology were presented and discussed at the 2005 Topic Maps Research and Applications conference in Linz; and at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning conference in Taipei, where they were invited for journal publication.

Scientific communication 1

Tesla and the Nature of Creativity (TNC 2015) is a prototype showing how a researcher's insight can be federated to benefit the public.

We described it in blog posts, A Collective Mind – Part One and Tesla and the Nature of Creativity, and here only highlight two of its design patterns.

Unraveling the narrow frame. Heisenberg, as we have seen, pointed out that the narrow frame (the "narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adopted from 19th century science) made us misapprehend core elements of culture. In the federated article, Dejan Raković explained how creativity too has been mishandled—specifically the kind of creativity on which our ability to "create a better world" and shift the paradigm depends. This prototype showed how the narrow frame can be broadened, academic creativity can be raised, and collective creativity can be fostered—by combining the fundamental and technical interventions proposed in five insights.

Federating an author's idea. An article written in an academic vernacular, of quantum physics, was transformed into a multimedia object—where its core idea was communicated by intuitive diagrams, and explained in recorded interviews with the author. A high-profile event was then organized to make the idea public, and discuss it in a dialog of experts. The idea was then embedded in a technology-enabled collective mind, implemented on Debategraph, where collective 'connecting the dots' continued.

This prototype models a new "social life of information"—alternative to peer reviews.

Scientific communication 2

Lightnouse 2016 prototype shows how an academic community can federate an insight. We offered it as a resolution to Wiener's paradox.

Federating an academic community's core insight. An academic community might produce "tons of information every hour"—while the public ignores even its most basic achievements. The federation here is in three phases. In the first, the community distills and substantiates an insight. In the second, state of the art communication design is applied, to make the insight accessible. In the third, the insight is strategically made impactful. In the actual prototype, the first phase was performed by the International Society for the Systems Sciences, the second by Knowledge Federation's communication design team, and the third by the Green Party of Norway.

Unraveling the Wiener's paradox. The specific question, which was posed for academic federation, was whether our society can rely on "free competition" or "survival of the fittest" in setting directions. Or whether information and systemic understanding must be used, as Norbert Wiener claimed—and the Modernity ideogram echoed.

Isn't this the very first question our society's 'headlights' must illuminate?

Public informing

Barcelona Innovation System for Good Journalism, BIGJ 2011, is a prototype of federated journalism. Journalism, or public informing, is of course directly in the role of 'headlights'.

Federated journalism. A journalist working alone has no recourse but to look for sensations. In BIGJ 2011 the journalist works within a 'collective mind', in which readers, experts and communication designers too have active roles—see this description.

Designed journalism. What would public informing be like, if it were not reified as "what the journalists are doing", but designed to suit its all-important social role? We asked "What do the people really need to know—so that the society may function, and the democracy may be real?" And we drafted a public informing that applies the time-honored approach of science to society's problems—see this explanation.

Culture

A culture is of course not only, and not even primarily explicit information. We sought ways in which essential memes ('cultural genes') can be saved from oblivion, and supported and strengthened through cross-fertilization (see this article).

We illustrate this part of knowledge federation by three prototypes in travel or tourism. Historically, travel was the medium for meme exchange. But the insuperable forces of economy changed that—and now travel is iconized by the couple on an exotic beach. The local culture figures in it as souvenir sellers and hotel personnel.

Dagali 2006 prototype showed that successful high-budget tourism can be created anywhere—by bringing travelers in direct contact with the locals. By allowing them to experience what the real life in a country is like—see this description.

UTEA 2003 is a re-creation of the conventional corporate model in tourism industry to support authentic travel and meme exchange. We benefited from a venture cup to secure help from an academic adviser and a McKinsey adviser in creating the business plan. The information technology's enabling role was explained in the appendix.

Authentic Herzegovina 2014 showed how to revitalize and support a culture that was destroyed by war—see this description.

Art

As journalism, art too can be transformed. And it may need to be transformed, if it should take its place on the creative frontier; fulfill its role in the collective mind. We highlight two design patterns.

Art as space. The artist no longer only creates, but creates a space where the public can create.

Art and science. The artist no longer works in isolation, but in a space illuminated by information—where memes that are most vital come to the fore, to be given a voice.

Our Earth Sharing pilot event, which we offer as illustration, took place in June of 2018, in Kunsthall 3,14 of Bergen. Vibeke Jensen, the artist who led us, avoids interpreting her creations. They are to be used as prompts, to allow meaning to emerge. The interpretation we share here is a possible one.

The physical space where the event took place symbolized holotopia's purpose: This building used to be a bank, and later became an art gallery. It remained to turn the gallery into a space for social transformation.

The gallery was upstairs—and Vibeke turned the stairs into a metaphor. Going up, the inscription read "bottom up"; going down, it read "top down". From the outset, the visitors were sensitized to those two ways to connect ideas.

The BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool then suggested to transcend fixed ways of looking, and combine worldviews and perspectives.

A one-way mirror served as entrance to the deepest transformative space, which used to be a vault. The treasury could only be reached by stepping through the mirror. The 'treasure' in it were ideas, and a "safe space" to reflect. The inside of the vault was only dimly lit, by the light that penetrated from outside. A pair of speakers emitted edited fragments of past dialogs—offered for contemplation, and re-creation.

Think of the objects that populated the installation as 'furniture': When we enter a conventional room, its furniture tells us how the room is to be used, and draws us into a stereotype. This 'furniture' was unlike anything we've seen! It invited us to invent the way we use the space; to co-create the way we are together.

The creation that took place in this space was the Holotopia project's inception.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 <p>Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it?
 <blockquote> Because <em>on a much larger scale</em> this absurdity has become reality.</blockquote> </p>
+<p>The Modernity <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of our contemporary situation by depicting our society as an accelerating bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it as guided by a pair of candle headlights.</p>
 </div>
 <div class="col-md-3">
@@ Line 14: / Line 17: @@
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our proposal</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>The Modernity <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of our contemporary situation by depicting our society as an accelerating bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it as guided by a pair of candle headlights.</p>
+<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Its essence</h3>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A proposal</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
 <blockquote>
 The core of our proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
@@ Line 43: / Line 37: @@
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Its substance</h3>
 <p>What would our handling of information be like, if we treated it as we treat other human-made things—if we took advantage of our best knowledge and technology, and adapted it to the purposes that need to be served?</p>
@@ Line 50: / Line 44: @@
 <blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> <em>prototype</em> of the handling of information we are proposing—by which initial answers to relevant questions are given, and in part implemented in practice. </blockquote>
-<p>We call the proposed approach to information [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] when we want to point to the <em>activity</em> that distinguishes it from the  common practices. We <em>federate</em> knowledge when we make what we "know" information-based; when we examine, select and combine all potentially relevant resources. When also the <em>way</em> in which we handle knowledge is <em>federated</em>.</p>
+<p>We call the proposed approach to information [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] when we want to point to the <em>activity</em> that distinguishes it from the  common practices. We <em>federate</em> knowledge when we make what we "know" information-based; when we examine, select and combine all potentially relevant resources. When also the <em>way</em> in which we handle information is <em>federated</em>.</p>
 <blockquote>The purpose of <em>knowledge federation</em> is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>
@@ Line 58: / Line 52: @@
 <blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and real-life <em>praxis</em> (informed practice).</blockquote>
-<p>We refer to our proposal as [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] when we want to emphasize the <em>difference</em> it can make. </p>
+<h3>Its method</h3>
-<blockquote>The purpose of the [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] is to enable us to see things whole.</blockquote>
+<p>We refer to our proposal as [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] when we want to emphasize the difference it can make. </p>
+<blockquote>The purpose of the [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] is to help us see things whole.</blockquote>
 <p>
@@ Line 67: / Line 63: @@
 </p>
-<p>We use the Holoscope [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] to point to this purpose; and to explain how this purpose is achieved through <em>knowledge federation</em>. The <em>ideogram</em> draws on the metaphor of inspecting a hand-held cup, in order to see whether it is broken or whole. We inspect a cup by <em>choosing</em> the way we look; and by looking at all sides. And this looking at all sides—that is what <em>knowledge federation</em> is about.</p>
+<p>We use the Holoscope [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] to point to this purpose. The <em>ideogram</em> draws on the metaphor of inspecting a hand-held cup, in order to see whether it is broken or whole. We inspect a cup by <em>choosing</em> the way we look; and by looking at all sides.</p>
 <p>While the characteristics of the <em>holoscope</em>—the design choices or <em>design patterns</em>, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation, one of them must be made clear from the start.</p>
-<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy and the peaceful coexistence of multiple ways of looking at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>holoscope</em> distinguishes itself by allowing for <em>multiple</em> ways to look at a theme or issue, which are called <em>scopes</em>. The <em>scopes</em> and the resulting <em>views</em> have a similar meaning as projections do in technical drawing. </p>
+<p>The ways of looking are called <em>scopes</em>. The <em>scopes</em> and the resulting <em>views</em> have similar role and meaning as projections do in technical drawing. </p>
-<p>This <em>modernization</em> of our handling of information—distinguished by purposeful, free and informed <em>creation</em> of the ways in which we look at a theme or issue—has become <em>necessary</em> in our situation, suggests the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with our conventional ones.</p>
+<p>This <em>modernization</em> of our handling of information, distinguished by purposeful, free and informed choice or <em>creation</em> of the way we look at the world, has become necessary, suggests the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with the conventional ones.</p>
 <p>To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of <em>scopes</em>, we used the scientific method as venture point, and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy. </p>
@@ Line 86: / Line 82: @@
 <p>We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something <em>is</em> as stated, that <em>X</em> <em>is</em> <em>Y</em>—although it would be more accurate to say that <em>X</em> can or needs to be perceived (also) as <em>Y</em>. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered <em>scope</em>); and to do that collectively and collaboratively, in a [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]].</p>
-<p>All elements in our proposal are deliberately left unfinished, as a collection of <em>prototypes</em>. Think of them as composing a 'cardboard model of a city', and a 'construction site'.  By sharing them we are not making a case for a specific 'city'—but for 'architecture' as academic field, and real-life <em>praxis</em>. </p>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 92: / Line 87: @@
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>A difference to be made</h3>
 <blockquote>Suppose we used the <em>holoscope</em> as 'headlights'; what difference would that make?</blockquote>
@@ Line 128: / Line 123: @@
 <p>
 The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".</p>
+<h3>A <em>different</em> way to see the future</h3>
 <blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> is a vision of a future that becomes accessible when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.</blockquote>
 <p>Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. In view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.</p>
 <p>As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" were offered as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.</p>
-<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is different in spirit from them all. It is<em>more</em> attractive  than the futures the utopias projected—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not exist. And yet the <em>holotopia</em> is readily attainable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>
+<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is different in spirit from them all. It is <em>more</em> attractive  than the futures the utopias projected—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not exist. And yet the <em>holotopia</em> is readily attainable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>
 <blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of [[five insights|<em>five insights</em>]].</blockquote>
@@ Line 140: / Line 137: @@
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[five insights|<em>Five insights</em>]]</h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<blockquote>What would our world be like, if instead of relying on habits and whims of desire we used knowledge-based insights to orient our handling?</blockquote>
-<p>Imagine if we found a cure to parochialism, religious <em>and</em> scientific, and <em>combined</em> our heritage across disciplines and traditions. Imagine if <em>everywhere</em> we had guiding principles, analogous to Newton's laws that gave structure to physics.</p>
-<p>We offer the [[five insights|<em>five insights</em>]] as a [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] collection of such principles. </p>
-<p>
 [[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
 <small>Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>
-</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> resulted when we applied the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five <em>pivotal</em> themes; "pivotal" because they <em>determine</em> the "course":</blockquote>
- <p>The <em>five insights</em> resulted when we applied the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five <em>pivotal</em> themes; "pivotal" because they <em>determine</em> the "course":</p>
 <ul>
 <li><b>Innovation</b>—the way we use our growing ability to create, and induce change</li>
 <li><b>Communication</b>—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled</li>
-<li><b>Epistemology</b>—the fundamental assumptions we use to create truth and meaning; which determine the relationship we have with information</li>
+<li><b>Foundation</b>—the fundamental assumptions based on which truth and meaning are socially constructed; which serve as foundation to the edifice of culture; which <em>determine</em> the relationship we have with information</li>
 <li><b>Method</b>—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life; or the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it</li>
 <li><b>Values</b>—the way we "pursue happiness"; or choose "course"</li>
 </ul>
-<p>In each case, we found a structural defect, which led to perceived problems. We demonstrated practical ways, partly implemented as <em>prototypes</em>, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We showed that their removal naturally leads to improvements that reach far beyond the solution to problems.</p>
+<p>In each case, when we 'connected the dots' (combined the available insights to reach a general one), we were able to identify a large structural defect. We demonstrated practical ways, partly implemented as <em>prototypes</em>, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We showed that such structural interventions lead to benefits that are well beyond curing problems.</p>
-<p>The <em>five insights</em> establish an analogy between our contemporary cultural situation and the situation at the dawn of the historical "great cultural revival", when Galilei was in house arrest, because their themes are the principal <em>aspects</em> of that analogy:</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> establish an analogy between the comprehensive change that was germinating in Galilei's time, and what is in store for us now.</blockquote>
-<ul>
-<li>Innovation (analogy with the Industrial Revolution, which revolutionized the efficiency of labor)</li>
-<li>Communication (analogy with the advent of the printing press, which revolutionized the dissemination of knowledge)</li>
-<li>Epistemology (analogy with the Enlightenment, which enthroned direct experience and reason)</li>
-<li>Methodology (analogy with the advent of science, as an informed and effective way to knowledge)</li>
-<li>Values (analogy with the Renaissance, which empowered our ancestors to seek happiness on the earthly realm)</li>
-</ul>
-<p>In each case, we saw that the way we comprehend and handle the issue is ripe to be <em>fundamentally</em> changed.</p>
-<p><b>Innovation (<em>power structure</em> insight)</b>. When "free competition" or "the market" steer our growing capability to create and induce change, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> become <em>power structures</em>—which obstruct natural and human <em>wholeness</em>. A dramatic improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of our work, and of the human condition in general, will result from <em>systemic innovation</em>—when we learn to innovate by <em>making things whole</em> on every scale, and especially on the large scale where changes of institutions or <em>systems</em> are the effect.</p>
+<h3><em>Power structure</em> insight (analogy with Industrial Revolution)</h3>
+<p>We looked at <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> as gigantic socio-technical 'mechanisms'—which determine <em>how</em> we live and work; and what the effects of our efforts will be. </p>
+<p>
+[[File:Castells-vision.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>When "free competition" or the market controls our growing capability to create and induce change, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> evolve as <em>power structures</em>—and we <em>lose</em> the ability to steer a viable course. A dramatic improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of human work, and of the human condition at large, can result from <em>systemic innovation</em>, where we innovate by <em>making things whole</em> on the <em>large</em> scale, where socio-technical systems or institutions are made [[wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</p>
-<p><b>Communication (<em>collective mind</em> insight)</b></p>
+<h3><em>Collective mind</em> insight (analogy with Gutenberg Revolution)</h3>
-<blockquote>We cannot make things whole without <em>seeing</em> them whole.</blockquote>
+<p>We looked at the <em>social process</em> by which information is handled. </p>
-<p>Our challenge is no longer to mass-produce information, which the printing press made possible, but to co-create <em>meaning</em>.  Neil Postman observed:</p>
+<p>[https://youtu.be/8ApPkTvQ4QM?t=38 Hear Neil Postman] observe:</p>
 <blockquote> “We’ve entered an age of information glut. And this is something no culture has really faced before. The typical situation is information scarcity. (…) Lack of information can be very dangerous. (…) But at the same time too much information can be dangerous, because it can lead to a situation of meaninglessness, of people not having any basis for knowing what is relevant, what is irrelevant, what is useful, what is not useful, where they live in a culture that is simply committed, through all of its media, to generate tons of information every hour, without categorizing it in any way for you.”</blockquote>
-<p>We have seen that the new media technology enables us to self-organize differently, and and think <em>together</em>, as cells in a human mind do.</p>
+<p>We saw that the new media technology is still being used to make the social process that the printing press made possible (publishing or broadcasting) more efficient; which <em>breeds</em> glut!  In spite of the fact that core elements of the new technology have been created to enable a <em>different</em> social process—whose results are function and meaning; where technology enables us to think and create <em>together</em>, as cells in a single mind do.</p>
+<h3><em>Socialized reality</em> insight (analogy with Enlightenment)</h3>
-<p><b>Epistemology (<em>socialized reality</em> insight)</b>. We will only be able to change our knowledge-work systems when we learn to treat information as we treat other human-made things—by adapting it to the purposes that need to be served.</p>
+<p>We looked at the [[foundation|<em>foundation</em>]] on which truth and meaning are socially constructed, which we also call [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]]. It was the [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] change—from the rigidly held Biblical worldview of Galilei's prosecutors—that made the Enlightenment possible; that triggered comprehensive change.</p>
-<p>We have seen that this pivotal and all-important <em>eistemological</em> leap is now mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds. <em>Reification</em>—of worldviews, and of institutions or <em>systems</em>—has been the key instrument of <em>socialization</em> throughout history, by which the <em>power structures</em> imposed <em>their</em> order of things, contrary to our interests, and without our awareness. During the 20th century our self-awareness has evolved dramatically, and we are now able to self-reflect—<em>about</em> the social and cognitive processes by which "realities" are created. We are ready to liberate ourselves—abolishing <em>reification</em> and becoming accountable for the functions or roles that what we do has in our society.</p>
+<p>We saw that a similar fundamental change, with similar consequences, is now mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds.</p>
-<p><b>Methodology (<em>narrow frame</em> insight)</b>. Science eradicated prejudice and vastly expanded our knowledge—but only there where the methods and interests of its disciplines could be applied. The epistemology change makes it possible to <em>extend</em> the project "science" to include <em>all</em> questions where knowledge can make a difference.</p>
+<h3><em>Narrow frame</em> insight (analogy with Scientific Revolution)</h3>
-<p><b>Values (<em>convenience paradox</em> insight)</b>. When we illuminate the pivotal issue of values by <em>real</em> information—we see that <em>wholeness</em>, not <em>convenience</em>, must be our goal.</p>
+<p>We looked at the method by which truth and meaning are socially constructed.</p>
-<blockquote>Our <em>federation</em> showed that <em>a lot more</em> than what Peccei was asking for can realistically be achieved.</blockquote>
+<p> Science eradicated prejudice and expanded our knowledge—where the methods and interests of its disciplines could be applied. We showed how to <em>extend</em> the scientific approach to knowledge, to questions we <em>need to</em> answer. </p>
+<h3><em>Convenience paradox</em> insight (analogy with Renaissance)</h3>
+<p>We looked at the values that determine the way we "pursue happiness"; and our society's "course".</p>
+<p>We showed that when proper 'light' illuminates the 'way'—our choices and pursuits will be entirely different.</p>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 201: / Line 194: @@
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A mission</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Large</em> change is easy</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The "course" is a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]</h3>
+<blockquote>The changes the <em>five insights</em> are pointing to are inextricably co-dependent.</blockquote>
+<p>We cannot, for instance, replace 'candles' with 'lightbulbs' (as the <em>collective mind</em> insight demands), unless <em>systemic innovation</em> (demanded by the <em>power structure</em> insight)  is in place. And without having a general-purpose method for <em>creating</em> insights (which dissolves the <em>narrow frame</em>). We will remain unknowing victims of the <em>convenience paradox</em>, as long as we use 'candles' to illuminate the way. </p>
+<blockquote>We cannot make any of the required changes without making them all.</blockquote>
+<p>We may use Wiener's keyword "homeostasis" negatively—to point to the <em>undesirable</em> property of systems to maintain a course, even when the course is destructive. The system springs back, it nullifies attempted change.</p>
+<blockquote>It is because of this property of our global system that comprehensive change can be easy—even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may be impossible.</blockquote>
+<h3>"A way to change course" is in [[academia|<em>academia</em>]]'s hands</h3>
+<p>Paradigm changes, however, have an inherent logic and way they need to proceed.</p>
+<p>A "disease" is a living system's stable <em>pathological</em> condition. And we only call that a "remedy" which has the power to flip the system out of that condition. In systems terms, a remedy of that kind, a <em>true</em> remedy, is called "systemic leverage point". And when a <em>social</em> system is to be 'healed', then the most powerful "leverage point" is "the mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise"; and we must seek to restore "the power to transcend paradigms", as [http://holoscope.org/CONVERSATIONS#Donella <em>the</em> Donella Meadows pointed out].</p>
+<blockquote>By changing the relationship we have with information, we restore to our society its power to transcend its present [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]].</blockquote>
+<p>That simple change, the <em>five insights</em> showed,  will trigger all other requisite changes follow. We abolish <em>reification</em>—of worldviews and institutions in general, and of journalism, science and other inherited ways of looking at the world in particular—and we instantly see the imperative of changing them by adapting them to the purposes that must be served. </p>
+<p>Furthermore, as the <em>socialized reality</em> insight showed, this change is mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds. It follows as a logical consequence of what we already "know". </p>
+<p>This "way to change course" should be particularly easy because—being a <em>fundamental</em> change—it is entirely in control of publicly sponsored intellectuals, the [[academia|<em>academia</em>]].</p>
+<blockquote>We don't need to occupy Wall Street.</blockquote>
+<p><em>The university</em>, not the Wall Street, controls the systemic leverage point <em>par excellence</em>.</p>
+<p>And for us who are in academic positions already, who are called upon to make this timely change—there is nothing we need to occupy. What we must do to "change course" is  demanded by our occupation <em>already</em>.</p>
+<h3>"Human quality" <em>is</em> the key</h3>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Large</em> change is easy</h3>
+<p>But what about culture? What about the "human quality", which, as we have seen, Aurelio Peccei considered to be <em>the</em> key to reversing our condition?</p>
-<blockquote>The changes the <em>five insights</em> are pointing to are inextricably co-dependent.</blockquote>
+<p>On the morning of March 14, 1984, the day he passed away, Peccei dictated to his secretary from a hospital bed (as part of "Agenda for the End of the Century"):</p>
-<p>We cannot make one of them—without also making the rest!</p>
+<blockquote>"Human development is the most important goal."</blockquote>
-<p>As we pointed out, also in the above summary, the courses of action he <em>five insights</em> point to are so co-dependent, that any of them requires that we do them all. Norbert Wiener's keyword "homeostasis" can here be used <em>negatively</em>—to point out that an <em>undesirable</em> condition or configuration can also be held in check by the system's tendency to maintain a stable condition,  by springing back and nullifying change. A <em>pathological</em> condition can be stable—isn't that what we call "disease"? And isn't that why we don't call a drug a "remedy"—unless it is strong enough to <em>change</em> the body's pathological condition, to <em>reverse</em> its downward course.</p>
+<p>We can put this "humanistic" perspective on our map by looking at it in the "evolutionary" way, as Erich Jantsch suggested. Jantsch explained this way of looking through the metaphor of a boat (representing a system, which may be the natural world, or our civilization) on a river. The traditional science would position us <em>above</em> the boat, and have us look at it "objectively". The traditional systems science would position us <em>on</em> the boat, to seek ways to steer it effectively and safely. The "evolutionary" perspective invites us to see ourselves as—water. To acknowledge that we <em>are</em> the evolution! </p>
-<p>Hence what is demanded is a <em>comprehensive</em> and <em>coherent</em> change—of our cultural [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] as a whole.</p>
+<blockquote>By determining how we are as 'water', the "human quality" determines our evolutionary course.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>To "change course" means to change the <em>paradigm</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>The <em>power structure</em> insight showed that when we navigate the evolutionary stream by aiming to advance "our own" position—we unavoidably become part of the <em>power structure</em>; we <em>create</em> the systems that create problems.</p>
-<p>The Club of Rome's strategy is further supported by the insight reached in systems sciences—that restoring the <em>ability</em> to shift paradigms is "the most powerful" way to intervene into systems, [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Donella as Donella Meadows summarized].</p>
+<p>To put our two pivotal themes together, notice that changing the relationship we have with information should be <em>dramatically</em> easier for us than it was in Galilei's time—when it meant risking one's life or worse. The <em>academia</em>, not the Inquisition, is in change. But here's the rub: By being in charge, the <em>academia</em> is also <em>part of</em> the <em>power structure</em>!</p>
-<h3>Making things <em>whole</em></h3>
+<p>To see what this means practically and concretely, follow us through a thought experiment: Imagine that an academic administrator, let's call him Professor <em>X</em>, has just received a <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal. (We say "a" proposal, because proposals of this kind were advanced well before we were born.) What would be his reaction?</p>
-<p><em>What do we need to do</em> to "change course" toward <em>holotopia</em>?</p>
+<p>When <em>we</em> did this thought experiment, Professor <em>X</em> moved on to his next chore without ado. </p>
-<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> point to a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things  [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</blockquote>
-<p>This principle is suggested by <em>holotopia</em>'s name. And also by the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. Instead of <em>reifying</em> our institutions and professions, and merely acting in them competitively to improve "our own" situation or condition, we consider ourselves and what we do as functional elements in a larger system of systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit the [[Wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] of it all. </p>
-<p>Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!</p>
+<p>We have an amusing collection of anecdotes to support that prognosis. And anyhow, why would Professor <em>X</em> invest time in comprehending a proposal of this kind, when he knows right away, when <em>his body</em> knows (see the <em>socialized reality</em> insight), that his colleagues won't like it. When there is obviously nothing to be gained from it. </p>
+<blockquote><em>At the university too</em> we make decisions by "instrumental thinking"; by taking recourse to embodied knowledge of "what works".</blockquote>
-<h3>Human development is the key</h3>
+<p>We have seen (while developing the <em>power structure</em> insight) that this ethos <em>breeds</em> the <em>power structure</em>; that it <em>binds us</em> to <em>power structure</em>.</p>
-<p>In the morning of March 14, 1984, the day he passed away, Peccei dictated to his secretary from the hospital bed (as part of "Agenda for the End of the Century"):</p>
+<blockquote>This ethos is blatantly un-academic.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>Human development is the most important goal.</blockquote>
+<p>If Galilei followed it, the Inquisition would still be in charge; if Socrates did that, there would <em>be</em> no <em>academia</em>. </p>
-<p>The theme we are touching upon is <em>more</em> than the relationship we have with information; what we are talking about determines the relationship we have with the world, and with each other. A suitable context for understanding its broader import is what Erich Jantsch called the "evolutionary paradigm". Jantsch explained the evolutionary paradigm via the metaphor of a boat in a river, representing a system (which may at the limit be the natural world, or our civilization). When we use the classical scientific paradigm, we position ourselves <em>above</em> the boat, and aim to look at it "objectively". The classical systems paradigm would position us <em>on</em> the boat, and we would seek ways to steer the boat effectively and safely. But when we use the evolutionary paradigm, we perceive ourselves as—water. We <em>are</em> evolution. </p>
+<p>The academic tradition was <em>conceived</em> as a radical alternative to this way of making choices—where we develop and use <em>ideas</em> as guiding light.</p>
-<blockquote>The "human quality" determines <em>the way we are</em> as 'water'—and hence our evolutionary "course"; and our future. </blockquote>
+<blockquote>So was <em>knowledge federation</em>.</blockquote>
-<h3>Seeing things whole</h3>
+<p>We coined several [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] to point to some of the ironic sides of <em>academia</em>'s situation—as food for thought, and to set the stage for the academic [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]].</p>
-<p>"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>." </p>
+<p>From Newton we adapted the keyword [[giant|<em>giant</em>]], and use it for visionary thinkers whose ideas must be woven together to see the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] (Newton reportedly "stood on the shoulders of giants" to "see further"). But as our anecdotes illustrate, the <em>giants</em> have in recent decades been routinely <em>ignored</em>. Is it because the academic 'turf' is minutely divided? Because a <em>giant</em> would take too much space?</p>
+<p>From Johan Huizinga we adapted the keyword [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]], and use it to point out that (as we saw while discussing the <em>socialized reality</em> insight) we are biologically equipped for <em>two</em> kinds of knowing and evolving. The <em>homo ludens</em> in us does not seek guidance in the knowledge of ideas and principles; it suffices him to learn his social roles, as one would learn the rules of a game. The <em>homo ludens</em> does not need to to <em>comprehend</em> the world; it's the [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/Five_insights#Giddens <em>ontological</em> security] he finds comfort in.  </p>
-<p>To repair the broken tie between information and action; and between information and <em>meaning</em>. Each of the <em>five insights</em> is, before all—an <em>insight</em>. To see the new course, we must be able to create insights.</p>
+<p>We addressed our proposal to [[academia|<em>academia</em>]], which we defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". It goes without saying that the academic tradition's all-important role has been to keep us on the <em>homo sapiens</em> track. But as we have seen, the <em>power structure</em> ecology has the power to sidetrack institutional evolution toward the <em>homo ludens</em> devious course. </p>
-<blockquote>To be able to "change course", we must be able to see things whole.</blockquote>
+<p>The question must be asked:</p>
-<p>In this way a case for our proposal has also been made.</p>
+<blockquote>Does the academic institution's <em>own</em> ecology avoid this problem?</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 257: / Line 284: @@
 </blockquote> </p>
-<p>Still more concretely, we undertake to respond to <em>this</em> Mead's critical point:</p>
+<p>More concretely, we undertake to respond to <em>this</em> Mead's critical point:</p>
 <blockquote>"Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."</blockquote>
-<p>We, however, do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved".</p>
+<p>We, however, do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us" <em>can</em> be solved".</p>
 </div>
@@ Line 272: / Line 299: @@
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (who coordinated the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report "Limits to Growth") diagnose, recently, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" that The Club of Rome was warning us about five decades ago:</p>
+<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (who coordinated the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report "Limits to Growth") diagnose, recently, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" that The Club of Rome was warning us about back then:</p>
 <blockquote>
 "Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent <em>above</em> sustainable levels."
 </blockquote>
-<p>We wasted precious time pursuing a dream; [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it, as "the leader of the free world". </p>
+<p>We wasted precious time pursuing a dream; [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it, when he was "the leader of the free world". </p>
-<blockquote>A sense of sobering up, and of <em>catharsis</em>, now needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. </blockquote>
+<blockquote>A sense of sobering up, and of <em>catharsis</em>, needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. </blockquote>
 <p>Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time.</p>
-<p>Our very "progress" must now acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction. [https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Dennis Meadows say]:</p>
+<p>Our very "progress" must acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction. [https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Dennis Meadows say]:</p>
 <blockquote>
 "Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you <em>change</em> your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."
@@ Line 300: / Line 327: @@
 <p>They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. <b>Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.</b></p> </blockquote>
-<p>Diversity is good and useful, especially in times of change. The systems scientists coined the keyword "requisite variety" to point out that a <em>variety</em> of possible responses make a system viable, or "sustainable".</p>
+<p>Diversity is good and useful, especially in times of change. Systems scientists coined the keyword "requisite variety" to point out that a <em>variety</em> of possible responses make a system viable, or "sustainable".</p>
 <blockquote>The risk is, however, that the actions of "small voluntary groups of concerned citizens" may remain reactive.</blockquote>
-<p>From Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword [[symbolic action|<em>symbolic action</em>]], to make that risk more clear. We engage in <em>symbolic action</em> when we act <em>within</em> the limits of the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>power structure</em>—in ways that make us <em>feel</em> that we've done our duty. We join a demonstration; or an academic conference. But <em>symbolic action</em> can have only <em>symbolic</em> effects!</p>
+<p>From Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword [[symbolic action|<em>symbolic action</em>]], to make that risk clear. We engage in <em>symbolic action</em> when we act <em>within</em> the limits of the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>power structure</em>—in ways that make us <em>feel</em> that we've done our duty. We join a demonstration; or an academic conference. But <em>symbolic action</em> can only have <em>symbolic</em> effects!</p>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
-<blockquote>We have seen, however, that <em>comprehensive</em> change must be our shared goal.</blockquote>
+<span id="Hypothesis"></span>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="KeyPoint"></span>
+<blockquote>We have seen that <em>comprehensive</em> change must be our goal.</blockquote>
 <p>It is to that strategic goal that the <em>holotopia</em> vision is pointing. </p>
-<p>By supplementing this larger strategy, we neither deny that the problems we are facing <em>must</em> be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.</p>
+<p>By supplementing this larger strategy, we neither deny that the problems we are facing must be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.</p>
 <blockquote>The Holotopia project <em>complements</em> the problem-based approaches—by adding what is systemically lacking to make solutions <em>possible</em>.</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-6"><h3><em>We</em> will not change the world</h3>
-<blockquote>Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, the <em>holotopia</em> is a trans-generational construction project.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, <em>holotopia</em> is a trans-generational construction project.</blockquote>
-<p>It is what our generation owes to future generations.</p>
+<p><em>Our</em> generation's job is to begin it.</p>
-<p><em>Our</em> purpose is to begin it.</p>
 <p>Margaret Mead left us this encouragement:
@@ Line 333: / Line 356: @@
 </blockquote> </p>
-<p>Mead explained what exactly <em>distinguishes</em> a small group that is capable of making a large difference:</p>
+<p>Mead explained what exactly <em>distinguishes</em> a small group of people that is capable of making a large difference:</p>
 <blockquote>"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, but <em>the small group of interacting individuals</em> who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."</blockquote>
@@ Line 348: / Line 371: @@
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p><em>This</em>—capability to self-organize—is where "human quality" is needed. And that is what we've been lacking!</p>
+<p><em>This</em> capability—to self-organize and do something <em>because it's right</em>, because it <em>has to</em> be done—is where "human quality" is needed. That's what we've been lacking.</p>
-<p>The <em>five insights</em> have shown that again and again. Our stories are deliberately chosen to be a half-century old—and demonstrate that the "appropriately gifted" have already offered us their gifts. But <em>giants</em> and visionary ideas no longer have a place in the <em>order of things</em> we are living in.</p>
+<p>The <em>five insights</em> showed that again and again. Our stories were deliberately chosen to be a half-century old—and demonstrate that "the appropriately gifted" have offered us their gifts. But that "the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution" have been absent.</p>
-<p>We live in an institutional ecology that gives us "competitive advantage" <em>only if</em> we make ourselves small, sidestep "ideals", and become "little cogs that mesh together". Through innumerably many 'carrots and sticks' we have <em>internalized</em> the little institutional man who fits in, and  keeps our larger self on a leash (see  [https://youtu.be/tRpWtQOpFm4 this re-edited and pointedly repetitive excerpt] from the animated film The Incredibles; its ending will suggest what we must find courage to do). </p>
+<p>It is not difficult to see that our culture's  systemic ecology is to blame. As [https://youtu.be/mC_97F2Zn9k?t=24 this excerpt] from the animated film "The Incredibles" might illustrate, it gives us power only if we consent to make ourselves small, and be "well-lubricated cogs" in an institutional clockwork.</p>
-<blockquote>Our core strategy is to <em>change</em> the institutional ecology that makes us small.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>We must claim back our will to make a difference.</blockquote>
-<p>We will <em>not</em> sidestep that goal by adapting to the existing <em>order of things</em>,  treating the development of <em>holotopia</em> as "our project" and  trying to make it "successful"—within that very order of things we have undertaken to change.</p>
+<p>By writing the "Animal Farm" allegory, George Orwell pointed to a pattern that foiled humanity's attempts at change: By engaging in turf strife, revolutions tended to reproduce the conditions they aimed to change. </p>
-<p>We insist on considering the development of the <em>holotopia</em> as <em>our generation</em>'s opportunity and obligation—and hence as <em>your</em> project as much as ours. Our core strategy is to inspire and empower <em>you</em> to contribute to it and make a difference.</p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> institutes an ecology that is a radical alternative to turf strife.</blockquote>
-<p><em>We</em> will not change the world.</p>
+<p>While we'll use all creative means at our disposal to <em>disclose</em> turf behavior, we will self-organize to prevent <em>ourselves</em> from engaging in it. </p>
-<blockquote><b><em>You</em> will</b>.</blockquote>
+<p>The Holotopia project will <em>not</em> try to engineer its "success" by adapting to "the survival of fittest" ecology. On the contrary—we will engineer the <em>change</em> of that ecology, by accentuating our differences.</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>We know from chemistry that a crystal submerged in a solution of the same substance will make the substance crystallize according to its shape. Our strategy is to be that 'crystal'.</p>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
+<p>We build on the legacy of Gandhi's "satyagraha" (adherence to truth), and non-violently yet firmly uphold the truth that change is <em>everyone's</em> imperative. Our strategy is to empower <em>everyone</em> to make the change; and <em>be</em> the change.</p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> will not grow by "push", but by "pull". </blockquote>
-<div class="row">
+<p><em>We</em> will not change the world.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is conceived as a collaborative strategy game, where we make tactical moves toward the <em>holotopia</em> vision.</blockquote>
-<p>We make this 'game' engaging and smoothly drawing to its aim by contributing this collection of tactical assets. </p>
+<blockquote><b><em>You</em> will</b>.</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
-<b>This text will be corrected, improved and completed by the end of 2020. What is above is hopefully already readable; what follows is only a rough sketch.</b>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A space</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A mission</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Holotopia is an art project.</blockquote>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>Centuries ago a philosopher portrayed the human condition by telling a parable. He proposed to imagine us humans chained in a cave, able to look only at the wall of the cave where a projection of shadows is at play. He in this way portrayed what we dubbed <em>socialized reality</em>—that we live in a "reality" shaped by power play and calcified perception.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
-</p>
-<br>
-<small>The transformative space created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.</small>
-<p>The very thought of "a great cultural revival" brings to mind the image of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of an old <em>order of things</em> manifesting a new one. When Marcel Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged both the meaning of art and its limits. But the deconstruction of tradition has meanwhile been completed, and the time is now to <em>construct</em>.</p>
+<p>He pointed to development of ideas as the way to liberate ourselves.</p>
-<blockquote> What sort of art will manifest the <em>holotopia</em>?</blockquote>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> showed that we are still in the 'cave'.</blockquote>
-<p>In "Production of Space", Henri Lefebvre offered an answer—which we'll here summarize in <em>holotopia</em>'s buddying vernacular.</p>
+<blockquote>And how we can liberate ourselves once for all!</blockquote>
-<p>The core problem with the social system we are living in, Lefebvre observed, is that our past activity, crystalized as <em>power structure</em>, keeps us "alienated" from our intrinsically human quest of <em>wholeness</em>. In our present conditions, "what is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to turn this relationship upon its head:</p>
+<p>"A great cultural revival"—a change of evolutionary course that will lead to comprehensive improvement of our condition—is ready to begin as an <em>academic</em> revival; just as in Galilei's time.</p>
-<blockquote>"But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity."</blockquote>
-<blockquote>As an initiative in the arts, Holotopia produces <em>spaces</em> where what is alive in us can overcome what is making us dead.</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
 <p>
-[[File:Mirror-Lab.jpeg]]<br>
+[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
-<small>The mirror lands itself to artistic creation; the photo shows a sample of the prototypes from Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.</small>
+</p>
-</p>
+<p>When we say that the university needs to make structural changes within itself, and guide our society in a new phase of evolution, we are not saying anything new. We are echoing what others have said. </p>
+<blockquote>But the tie between information and action being severed—calls to action of this kind remained without effect.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>Our mission is to change that.</blockquote>
-<p>Let us begin with the obvious: The mirror is a visual and symbolic object par excellence. In <em>holotopia</em>, however, its symbolism is further enriched by a wealth of concrete interpretations.</p>
+<p>We implement this mission in two steps.</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>mirror</em> reflects the <em>holotopia</em>'s enchanting, 'magical' touch.</blockquote>
+<h3>Step 1: Enabling <em>academic</em> evolution</h3>
-<p>There is an unexpected, wonderful and seemingly magical way out of the "problematique"; a natural and effective way to transform our situation. We do not need to colonize another planet (we would anyhow bring to it our cultural malaise). We can move to a different reality here and now—<em>by seeing the world differently</em>. Or metaphorically—by stepping <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
+<p>The first step is to institutionalize <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field. This step is made actionable by a complete <em>prototype</em>—which includes all that constitutes an academic field, from an epistemology to a community.</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>mirror</em> tells us that we need to look at the world by putting <em>ourselves</em> into the picture.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>The purpose of <em>knowledge federation</em> is to enable <em>systems</em> to evolve knowledge-based.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>mirror</em> makes us aware of our socialized cognitive biases, and instructs us to use <em>knowledge</em> to see <em>both</em> ourselves <em>and</em> the world.</p>
+<blockquote><em>Knowledge work</em> systems to begin with.</blockquote>
-<p>It has been pointed out that Donald Trump does not believe in science. But when we carefully examine ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see don't do that either! Little Greta Thunberg does. She lives in the reality created by the scientists, and acts in a way that is consistent with it. But she was diagnosed of Asperger syndrome, and doesn't count as a counterexample. The truth is that <em>all of us</em> "normal" humans live in a <em>socialized reality</em>, created through body-to-body interaction; which is now vastly augmented by ever-present immersive media.</p>
+<p>By reconfiguring academic work on <em>design epistemology</em> as foundation, <em>knowledge federation</em> fosters an academic space where creativity can be applied and careers can be pursued by <em>creating</em> knowledge work. By <em>changing</em> our <em>collective mind</em>.</p>
- <p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes the abolition of <em>reification</em>, and the ascent of <em>accountability</em>.  By liberating ourselves from <em>reification</em>, we liberate ourselves from <em>socialized reality</em> and from <em>power structure</em>. We become empowered to <em>create</em> the way in which we see the world, to change our institutions, to begin "a great cultural revival".</p>
+<blockquote>This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Doug Engelbart and Erich Jantsch.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>The <em>mirror</em> is also a symbol of <em>academic</em> transformation.</blockquote>
+<h3>Step 2: Enabling <em>societal</em> evolution</h3>
-<p>In addition to the 'magical' solution to the "problematique", the <em>mirror</em> also has a sober side—where it reflects the need for <em>academic</em> self-reflection and transformation. This need is imposed academically and rigorously by the <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> we own. </p>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="TacticalAssets"></span>
-<p>Being a revolution of awareness, the <em>holotopia</em> has in <em>academia</em> its most powerful ally. </p>
+<p>The second step is to further develop and implement the <em>holotopia</em> vision in real life.</p>
-<p>We defined the <em>academia</em> as "institutionalized academic tradition" to make that point transparent. And we made Socrates be the <em>icon</em> of <em>academia</em>, as its intellectual father. By telling the story Plato told in Apology, we show that the <em>academia</em>'s point of inception was an act of <em>liberation</em> from <em>socialized reality</em>; Socrates used the dialogue as technique to shake off the "doxa" of the day. We created a <em>way of looking</em> at the contemporary university as an institutionalization of <em>that</em> tradition.</p>
+<p>By offering an attractive future vision, and a feedback structure around it to update it continuously; and by making tactical steps toward the realization of this vision—we restore to our society the faculty of vision; and the ability to "change course". </p>
-<p>At first glance, our job now may seem so much easier than what Socrates and Galilei had to do—because the academic tradition <em>is</em> in power!</p>
+<blockquote>This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Margaret Mead and Aurelio Peccei.</blockquote>
-<p>But there's a rub: Ironically, by being in power, the academic tradition is also <em>part of</em> the <em>power structure</em>! It is both a 'turf' in itself—and part of a larger 'turf'. This is easily seen if we acknowledge that, culture-wise, <em>anything goes</em> as long as it doesn't violate "scientific truth". A division of power is established similar in spirit to what existed in Galilei's time—albeit completely different in implementation.</p>
+</div> </div>
-<blockquote>Can we mobilize enough <em>academic</em> "human quality" to once again make the kind of difference that the academic tradition is called upon to make?</blockquote>
-<p>Finally, the <em>mirror</em> tells us most concretely how to begin "a great cultural revival", and make decisive progress toward developing "human quality". "Know thyself" has always been the battle cry of human cultivation. And isn't that what the <em>mirror</em> most naturally reflects?</p>
+<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
-<blockquote>We now have the great insights of 20th century science and philosophy, and the heritage of the world traditions—to help us know ourselves!</blockquote>
-<p>All we need to do is restore knowledge to power.</p>
-</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>dialog</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The Holotopia project is conceived as a collaborative strategy game, where we make tactical moves toward the <em>holotopia</em> vision.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>dialog</em>, just as the <em>mirror</em>, is an entire <em>aspect</em> of the <em>holotopia</em>. This [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]] defines an angle of looking from which the <em>holotopia</em> as a whole can be seen, and <em>needs</em> to be seen.</p>
-<p>The <em>mirror</em> and the <em>dialog</em> are inextricably related to one another: Our invitation is not only to self-reflect, but also and most importantly to have a <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>. The <em>dialog</em> is not only a <em>praxis</em>, but also an attitude. And the <em>mirror</em> points to <em>the</em> core element of that attitude—which David Bohm called "proprioception". But let's return to Bohm's ideas and his contribution to this timely cause in a moment.</p>
+<p>We make this 'game' smooth and [[awesomeness|<em>awesome</em>]] by supplementing a collection of tactical assets. </p>
-<p>The <em>dialog</em> is a key element of the <em>holotopia</em>'s tactical plan: We create <em>prototypes</em>, and we organize <em>dialogs</em> around them, as feedback mechanisms toward evolving them further. And this <em>dialog</em> itself, as it evolves—turns us who participate in it into bright new 'headlights'!</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>Everything in our Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is a <em>prototype</em>. And no <em>prototype</em> is complete without a feedback loop that reaches back into its structure, to update it continuously. Hence each <em>prototype</em> is equipped with a <em>dialog</em>.</p>
-<p>This point cannot be overemphasized: Our <em>primary</em> goal is not to warn, inform, propose a new way to look at the world—but <em>to change our collective mind</em>. Physically. Hands-on.</p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Art</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Holotopia is an art project.</blockquote>
+<p>Where "art" is a way of being, not a profession.</p>
+<p>
+[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
+</p>
+<br>
+<small>The transformative space created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.</small>
-<blockquote>The <em>dialog</em> is an instrument for <em>changing</em> our <em>collective mind</em>. </blockquote>
+<p>The idea of "a great cultural revival" brings to mind the image of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of an old <em>order of things</em> manifesting a new one. When Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged the traditional limits of what art is and may be. </p>
-<p>The <em>dialog</em>, even more than the <em>mirror</em>, brings up an association with the <em>academia</em>'s inception. Socrates was not <em>convincing</em> people of a "right" view to see "reality"; he was merely engaging them in a self-reflective <em>dialog</em>, the intended result of which was to see the <em>limits</em> of knowledge—from which the <em>change</em> of what we see as "reality" becomes possible.</p>
+<p>The deconstruction of the tradition has been completed, and it is time to <em>create</em>.</p>
-<p>Let us begin this <em>dialog</em> about the <em>dialog</em> by emphasizing that the medium here truly <em>is</em> the message: As long as we are having a <em>dialog</em>, we are making headway toward <em>holotopia</em>. And vice-versa: when we are debating or discussing our own view, aiming to enforce it on others and prevail in an argument, we are moving <em>away</em> from <em>holotopia</em>—<em>even when</em> we are using that method to promote <em>holotopia</em> itself!</p>
+<blockquote>What <em>memes</em> need to be fostered, and disseminated?</blockquote>
-<p>The attitude of the <em>dialog</em> here follows from the fundamental premises, which are part of the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insights—and which are <em>axiomatic</em> to <em>holotopia</em>. Hence coming to the <em>dialog</em> 'wearing boxing gloves' (manifesting the now so common verbal turf strife behavior) is as ill-advised as making a case for an academic result by arguing that it was revealed to the author in a vision.</p>
+<blockquote>In what ways will art be present on the creative frontier where the <em>new</em> "great cultural revivival" will enfold?</blockquote>
-<blockquote>But what <em>is</em> the <em>dialog</em>?</blockquote>
+<p>In "Production of Space" Henri Lefebvre offered an answer, which we'll summarize in <em>holotopia</em>'s buddying vernacular.</p>
-<p>Instead of giving a definitive answer—let us turn this <em>keyword</em>, [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]], into an abstract ideal goal, to which we will draw closer and closer by experimenting, and evolving. <em>Through</em> a <em>dialog</em>. We offer the following stories as both points of reference, and as illustration of the kind of difference that the <em>dialog</em> as new way to communicate can mean, and make.</p>
+<p>The crux of our problem, Lefebvre observed, is that past activity (historical 'turf strifes' calcified as <em>power structure</em>) keeps us in check. "What is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to <em>reverse</em> that.</p>
-<h3>David Bohm's "dialogue"</h3>
+<blockquote>"But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity."</blockquote>
-<p>While through Socrates and Plato the dialog has been a foundation stone of the academic tradition, David Bohm gave this word a completely new meaning—which we have undertaken to develop further. The [https://www.bohmdialogue.org Bohm Dialogue website] provides an excellent introduction, so it will suffice to point to it by echoing a couple of quotations. The first is by Bohm himself.</p>
+<blockquote>Holotopia project is a space and a production of spaces, where what is alive in us can overcome what makes us dead.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>There is a possibility of creativity in the socio-cultural domain which has not been explored by any known society adequately.</blockquote>
+<p>Where in the artist as retort, <em>new</em> ways to feel, think and act are created. </p>
-<p>We let it point to the fact that to Bohm the "dialogue" was an instrument of socio-cultural therapy, leading to a whole new <em>co-creative</em> way of being together. Bohm considered the dialogue to be a necessary step toward unraveling our contemporary situation.</p>
-<p>The second quotation is a concise explanation of Bohm's idea by the curators of Bohm Dialogue website.</p>
+</div> </div>
-<blockquote> Dialogue, as David Bohm envisioned it, is a radically new approach to group interaction, with an emphasis on listening and observation, while suspending the culturally conditioned judgments and impulses that we all have. This unique and creative form of dialogue is necessary and urgent if humanity is to generate a coherent culture that will allow for its continued survival.</blockquote>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Holotopia's creative space is spanned by <em>five insights</em>.</blockquote>
-<p>As this may suggest, the [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is conceived as a direct antidote to [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]-induced [[socialized reality|<em>socialized reality</em>]].</p>
+<p>
+[[File:Holotopia33.jpeg]]<br>
+<small>The pentagram, which represents the <em>five insights</em>, lends itself to artistic interpretations.</small>
+</p>
-<h3>Carl Jung's shadow</h3>
+<p>Creation takes place <em>in the context of</em> the <em>five insights</em>. That makes <em>holotopia</em>'s creative acts knowledge based.</p>
-<p>Carl Jung pointed to a useful insight for understanding the <em>dialog</em>, by his own lead keyword "shadow". In a non-whole world, we become "large" by ignoring or denying or "repressing" parts of our <em>wholeness</em>, which become part of our "shadow".  The larger we are, the larger the "shadow". It follows us, scares us, annoys us. <em>And</em> it contains what we must integrate, to be able to grow.</p>
+<p>Like five pillars, the <em>five insights</em> lifts up the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> as creative space, from what <em>socialized reality</em> might allow. We see "reality" differently in that space; we learn to perceive <em>reification</em> as a problem, which made us willing slaves to institutions. We no longer buy into the self-image and values that the <em>power structure</em> gave us.</p>
-<p>The <em>dialog</em> may in this context be understood as a therapeutic instrument, to help us discharge and integrate our "shadow". </p>
+<p>Art meets science in that space; and curated knowledge in general. Not for a visit, but to live and work together. By sharing <em>five insights</em>, science tells art "Here is how far I've gotten; here is where <em>you</em> take over." </p>
-<h3><em>Dialog</em> and <em>epistemology</em></h3>
+<p>The <em>five insights</em> are a <em>prototype</em>—of a minimal collection of insight that can overturn the <em>paradigm</em>. With provision to evolve continuously—and reflect what we know collectively.</p>
-<p>Bohm's own inspiration (story has it) is significant. Allegedly, Bohm was moved to create the "dialogue" when he saw how Einstein and Bohr, who were once good friends, <em>and</em> their entourages, were unable to communicate at Princeton. Allegedly, someone even made a party and invited the two groups, to help them overcome their differences, but the two groups remained separated in two distinct corners of the room.</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> bring to the fore what is most <em>transformative</em> in our collective knowledge.</blockquote>
-<p>The reason why this story is significant is the root cause of the Bohr-Einstein split: Einstein's "God does not play Dice" criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory; and Bohr's reply "Einstein, stop telling god what to do!" While in our <em>prototype</em> Einstein has the role of the <em>icon</em> of "modern science", in this instance it was Bohr and not Einstein who represented the <em>epistemological</em> position we are supporting. But Einstein later reversed his position— in "Autobiographical Notes". This very title mirrors Einstein as an artist of understatement; "Autobiographical Notes" is really a statement of Einstein's epistemology—just as "Physics and Philosophy" was to Heisenberg. While the fundamental assumptions for the <em>holoscope</em> have been carefully <em>federated</em>, it has turned out that <em>federating</em> "Autobiographical Notes" is sufficient, see [[IMAGES|Federation through Images]]).</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>The point may or may not be obvious: <em>Even to Einstein</em>, this <em>icon</em> of "modern science", the <em>dialog</em> was lacking to see that we just <em>cannot</em> "tell God what to do"; that the only thing we can do is observe the experience—<em>and model it freely</em>.</p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] is the entrance to <em>holotopia</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>
+[[File:Mirror-Lab.jpeg]]<br>
+<small>Mirror prototypes in Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.</small>
+</p>
-<p>But Einstein being Einstein—he finally <em>did</em> get it. And so shall we!</p>
+<p>As these snapshots might illustrate, the <em>mirror</em> is an object that lends itself to endless artistic creations. <em>And</em> it is also an inexhaustible source of metaphors. One of them, or perhaps a common name for them, is self-reflection.</p>
-<h3><em>Dialog</em> and creativity</h3>
+<blockquote>It is through genuine self-reflection and self-reflective [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] that <em>holotopia</em> can be reached.</blockquote>
-<p>Bohm's experience with the "dialogues" made him conclude that when a group of people practices it successfully, something quite wonderful happens—a greater sense of coherence, and harmony. It stands to reason that the open and humble attitude of the <em>dialog</em> is an important or a <em>necessary</em> step toward true creativity.</p>
+<p>We are contemplating to honor this fact by adopting <em>holotopia hypothesis</em> as <em>keyword</em>. Not because it is hypothetical (it is not!), but to encourage us all to have a certain attitude when entering <em>holotopia</em>. We are well aware that "the society" has problems. The key here is to see <em>ourselves</em> as products of that society. Let the <em>mirror</em> symbolize the self-reflection we willingly undergo, to become able to co-create a <em>better</em> society.</p>
-<p>And creativity, needless to say, is yet <em>another</em> key aspect of <em>holotopia</em>, and a door we need to unlock.</p>
+<blockquote>As always, we enter a new reality by looking at the world differently; this time it is by putting <em>ourselves</em> into the picture.</blockquote>
-<p>We touched upon the breadth and depth of this theme by developing our [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/ Tesla and the Nature of Creativity] [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]]—and we offer it here to prime our future <em>dialogs</em> about it.</p>
+<p>"Know thyself" has always been the battle cry of humanity's teachers. The <em>mirror</em> teaches us that our ideas, our emotional responses and our desires and preferences are not objectively given. That they take shape <em>inside</em> of us—as consequences of living in a culture. </p>
-<h3><em>Dialog</em> and The Club of Rome</h3>
+<blockquote>The <em>mirror</em> is a symbol of cultural revival.</blockquote>
-<p>There is a little known red thread in the history of The Club of Rome; the story could have been entirely different: Özbekhan, Jantsch and Christakis, who co-founded The Club with Peccei and King, and wrote its statement of purpose, were in disagreement with the course it took in 1970  (with The Limits to Growth study) and left. Alexander Christakis, the only surviving member of this trio, is now continuing their line of work as the President of the Institute for 21st Century Agoras.  "The Institute for 21st Century Agoras is credited for the formalization of the science of Structured dialogic design." (Wikipedia).</p>
+<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight showed that we can <em>radically</em> improve the way we feel; and the way we are. And that this can only be achieved through long-term <em>cultivation</em>. </p>
-<p>Bela H. Banathy, whom we've mentioned as the champion of "Guided Evolution of Society" among the systems scientists, extensively experimented with the <em>dialog</em>. For many years, Banathy was staging a series of dialogs within the systems community, the goal of which was to envision social-systemic change. With Jenlink, Banathy co-edited two invaluable volumes of articles about the dialogue.</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>mirror</em> is also a symbol of <em>academic</em> revival.</blockquote>
-<h3><em>Dialog</em> and democracy</h3>
+<p>It invites the [[academia|<em>academia</em>]] to revive its ethos through self-reflective <em>dialog</em>. To see itself <em>in</em> the world, and adapt to its role. And to then liberate the oppressed, which we all are, from <em>reification</em> and its consequences—by leading us <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
-<p>In 1983, Michel Foucault was invited to give a seminar at the UC Berkeley. What will this European historian of ideas par excellence choose to tell the young Americans?</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p> Foucault spent six lectures talking about an obscure Greek word, "parrhesia".</p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is <em>holotopia</em>'s signature approach to communication.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>[P]arrhesiastes is someone who takes a risk. Of course, this risk is not always a risk of life. When, for example, you see a friend doing something wrong and you risk incurring his anger by telling him he is wrong, you are acting as a parrhesiastes. In such a case, you do not risk your life, but you may hurt him by your remarks, and your friendship may consequently suffer for it. If, in a political debate, an orator risks losing his popularity because his opinions are contrary to the majority's opinion, or his opinions may usher in a political scandal, he uses parrhesia. Parrhesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger. And in its extreme form, telling the truth takes place in the "game" of life or death.</blockquote>
+<p>The philosopher who saw us as chained in a cave used the dialog as way to freedom. Since then this technique has been continuously evolving.</p>
-<p>Foucault's point was that "parrhesia" was an <em>essential</em> element of Greek democracy.</p>
+<p>David Bohm gave this evolutionary stream a new direction, by turning the <em>dialog</em> into an antidote to 'turf strife'. Instead of wanting to impose our "reality" on others, Bohm insisted, we must use "proprioception" (mindfully watch ourselves) and <em>inhibit</em> such desires.</p>
-<p>[https://youtu.be/C7Gw--6t3s4 This four-minute digest of the 2020 US first presidential debate] will remind us just how much the spirit of <em>dialog</em> is absent from modernity's oldest democracy; and from political discourse at large.</p>
+<blockquote>Isn't this what the <em>mirror</em> too demands?</blockquote>
-<h3><em>Dialog</em> and new media technology</h3>
+<p>A whole new stream of development was initiated by Kunst and Rittel, who proposed "issue-based information systems" in the 1960s, as a way to tackle the "wickedness" of complex contemporary issues. Jeff Conklin later showed how such tools can be used to transform collective communication into a collaborative dialog, through "dialog mapping". Baldwin and Price extended this approach online, and <em>already</em> transformed parts of our global mind through Debategraph.</p>
-<p>A whole new chapter in the evolution of the dialogue was made possible by the new information technology. We illustrate an already developed research frontier by pointing to [https://www.cognexus.org/id17.htm Jeff Conklin's] book "Dialogue Mapping: Creating Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems", where Bohm dialogue tradition is combined with Issue Based Information Systems (IBIS), which Kunz and Rittel developed at UC Berkeley in the 1960s. </p>
+<blockquote>The <em>dialog</em> changes the world by changing the way we communicate.</blockquote>
-<p>The [http://Debategraph.org Debategraph], which we already mentioned, is <em>transforming</em> our <em>collective mind</em> hands-on. Contrary to what its name may suggest, Debategraph is an IBIS-based  <em>dialog</em> mapping tool. While he was the Minister for Higher Education in Australian government, Peter Baldwin saw that political debate was <em>not</em> a way to understand and resolve issues. So he decided to retire from politics, and with David Price co-founded and created Debategraph to <em>transform</em> politics, by changing the way in which issues are explored and decisions are made.</p>
+<p>The theory and the ethos of [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] can furthermore be combined by situation design and artful camera work—to phase out turf behavior completely. [https://youtu.be/C7Gw--6t3s4 This four-minute digest of the 2020 US first presidential debate] will remind us that the <em>dialog</em> is not part of our political discourse.
+[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0141gupAryM&feature=youtu.be&t=135 This subtler example] shows the turf behavior that thwarted The Club of Rome's efforts: The <em>homo ludens</em> will say <em>whatever</em> might serve to win an argument; and with a confident smile! He knows that <em>his</em> "truth" suits the <em>power structure</em>—and therefore <em>will</em> prevail. </p>
-<p>In Knowledge Federation, we experimented extensively with turning Bohm's dialog into a 'high-energy cyclotron'; and into a medium through which a community can find "a way to change course". The result was a series of so-called Key Point Dialogs. An example is the Cultural Revival Dialog Zagreb 2008. We are working on bringing its website back online. </p>
+<p>To point to the <em>dialog</em>'s further tactical possibilities, we contemplate adapting "reality show" as  [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]]. When the <em>dialog</em> brings us together to daringly create, we see a new social reality emerge. When it doesn't, we witness the grip that <em>socialized reality</em> has on us.</p>
+</div> </div>
-<h3><em>Dialog</em> as a <em>tactical</em> asset</h3>
-<p>When it comes to using the [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] as a <em>tactical</em> asset—as an <em>instrument</em> of cultural change toward the <em>holotopia</em>—two points need to be emphasized:</p>
-<ul>
+<div class="row">
-<li>We <em>define</em> the <em>dialog</em>, and we <em>insist</em> on having a <em>dialog</em> </li>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Keywords</em></h2></div>
-<li>We design our situations, and we use the media, in ways make that deviations from the <em>dialog</em>  obvious</li>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>[[keyword|<em>Keywords</em>]] enable us to speak and think in new ways.</blockquote>
-</ul>
-<p>When a <em>dialog</em> is recorded, and placed into the <em>holotopia</em> framework, violations become obvious—because the <em>attitude</em> of the [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is so completely different! We may see how this made a difference in the Club of Rome's history, where the debate gave unjust advantage to the <em>homo ludens</em> turf players—who don't use "parrhesia", but say whatever will earn them points in a debate, and smile confidently, knowing that the "truth" of the <em>power structure</em>, which they represent, will prevail!  The body language, however, when placed in the right context, makes this game transparent. See [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0141gupAryM&feature=youtu.be&t=135 this example], where Dennis Meadows is put off-balance by an opponent.</p>
+<p>A warning reaches us from sociology.</p>
+<p>
+[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>Beck explained:</p>
+<blockquote>
+"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of <em>categories and basic assumptions</em> of classical social, cultural and political sciences."
+</blockquote>
-<p>Hence the <em>dialog</em>—when adopted as medium, and when <em>mediated</em> by suitable technology and camera work—<em>becomes</em> the <em>mirror</em>; it <em>becomes</em> a new "spectacle" (in Guy Debord's most useful interpretation of this word). We engage the "opinion leaders", and use the <em>dialog</em> to re-create the conventional "reality shows"—in a manner that shows the contemporary realities in a way in which they <em>need</em> to be shown:</p>
+<p>Imagine us in this "iron cage", compelled, like mythical King Oedipus, to draw closer to a tragic destiny as we do our best to avoid it—by the "categories and basic assumptions" that have been handed down to us.</p>
-<ul>
-<li>When a <em>dialog</em> is successful, the result is timely and informative: We <em>witness</em> how our understanding and handling of core social realities are changing</li>
-<li>When unsuccessful, the result is timely and informative in a <em>different</em> way: We witness the resistance to change; we see what is holding us back</li>
-</ul>
-</div> </div>
+<blockquote>We offered [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]] and creation of [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] as a way out of "iron cage". </blockquote>
+<p>While we've been seeing examples all along, we here share three more—to illustrate the exodus.</p>
+<h3><em>Culture</em></h3>
+<p>In "Culture as Praxis", Zygmunt Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and concluded that they are too diverse to be reconciled.</p>
+<blockquote>We do not know what "culture" means.</blockquote>
-<div class="row">
+<p>Not a good venture point for developing culture as <em>praxis</em>!</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>While the role of the arts is to communicate and create, to put 'the dot on the i', the <em>five insights</em> model the <em>holotopia</em>'s knowledge base. They ensure that what we communicate and create reflects the state of the art of knowledge in relevant areas of interest. Together, they compose a complete 'i', or 'lightbulb', or "headlights and steering", or "communication and control".</p>
+<p>We defined  <em>culture</em> as "<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>"; and <em>cultivation</em> by analogy with planting and watering a seed—in accord with the etymology of that word.</p>
-<p>
+<p>In that way we created a specific <em>way of looking</em> at culture—which reveals where 'the cup is broken'; and where enormous progress can be made. As no amount of dissecting and analyzing a seed will suggest that it should be planted and watered, so does the <em>narrow frame</em> obscure from us the benefits that the <em>culture</em> can provide. As the cultivation of land does, the <em>cultivation</em> of human <em>wholeness</em> too requires that subtle cultural practices be <em>phenomenologically</em> understood; and integrated in <em>our</em> culture. </p>
-[[File:Holotopia33.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>The symbolic language of the arts can condense the <em>five insights</em> to images and objects, place them into physical reality and our shared awareness—as the above paper models may suggest.</p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> will distill the essences of human <em>cultivation</em> from the world traditions—and infuse them into a <em>functional</em> post-traditional culture.</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
+<p>Our definition of <em>culture</em> points to the analogy that Béla H. Bánáthy brought up in "Guided Evolution of Society"—between the Agricultural Revolution that took place about twelve thousand years ago, and the social and cultural revolution that is germinating in our time. In this former revolution, Bánáthy explained, our distant ancestors learned to consciously take care of their biophysical environment, by cultivating land. We will now learn to cultivate our <em>social</em> environment.</p>
-<div class="row">
+<p>There is, however, a point where this analogy breaks down: While the cultivation of land yields results that everyone can see, the results of <em>human</em> cultivation are hidden within. They can only be seen by those who have already benefited from it.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|<em>Ten themes</em>]]</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Everything</em> in <em>holotopia</em> is a potential theme for a <em>dialog</em>. Indeed, everything in our <em>holotopia</em> <em>prototype</em> is a <em>prototype</em>; and a <em>prototype</em> is not complete unless there is a <em>dialog</em> around it, to to keep it evolving and alive. </p>
-<p>In particular each of the <em>five insights</em> will, we anticipate, ignite a lively conversation.</p>
-<p>We are, however, especially interested in using the <em>five insights</em> as a <em>framework</em> for creating other themes and dialogs. The point here is to have <em>informed</em> conversations; and to show that their quality of being informed is what makes all the difference. And in our present <em>prototype</em>, the <em>five insights</em> symbolically represent that what needs to be known, in order to give any age-old or contemporary theme a completely new course of development.</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em>, and the ten direct relationships between them, provide us a frame of reference—in the context of which both age-old and contemporary challenges can be understood and handled in entirely new ways.</blockquote>
-<p>Here are some examples.</p>
+<blockquote>The benefits of a functioning <em>culture</em> could be prodigious—without us seeing that.</blockquote>
-<h3>How to put an end to war?</h3>
+<p>This is why communication is so central to <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war, once and for all?</blockquote>
+<p>This is why we must step through the <em>mirror</em> to come in.</p>
+<h3><em>Addiction</em></h3>
-<p>The <em>five insights</em> allow us to understand the war as just an extreme case among the various consequences of our general evolutionary course, by "the survival of the fittest"—where the populations that developed armies and weapons had "competitive advantage" over those who "turned the other cheek". It is that very evolutionary course that the Holotopia project undertakes to change.</p>
+<p>The traditions identified <em>activities</em> such as gambling, and <em>things</em> such as opiates as addictions. But selling addictions is a lucrative business. What will hinder businesses from using new technologies to create <em>new</em> addictions?</p>
-<p>We offered the [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Chomsky-Harari-Graeber Chomsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em>] as a way to understand the evolutionary course we've been pursuing, and the consequences it had. Noam Chomsky here appears in the role of a linguist—to explain (what he considers a revolutionary insight reaching us from his field) that the human language did not develop as an instrument of communication, but of worldview sharing. Yuval Noah Harari, as a historian, explains why exactly <em>that</em> capability made us the fittest among the species, fit to rule the Earth. David Graeber's story of Alexander the Great illustrates the consequences this has had—including the destruction of secular and sacral culture, and turning free people into slaves.</p>
+<blockquote>By defining <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>, we made it possible to identify it as an <em>aspect</em> of otherwise useful activities and things.</blockquote>
-<p>We then told about Joel Bakan's "The Corporation", to show that while the outlook of our society changed since then beyond recognition—the nature of our cultural and social-systemic evolution, and its consequences, remained in principle the same.</p>
+<p>To make ourselves and our culture <em>whole</em>, even subtle addiction must be taken care of.</p>
-<p>We could have, however, taken this conversation in the making in another direction—by talking about the meeting between Alexander and Diogenes; and by doing that reaching another key insight. </p>
+<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight showed that <em>convenience</em> is a general addiction; and the root of innumerable specific ones.</p>
-<p>This part of the conversation between Alexander and Diogenes (quoted here from Plutarch) is familiar :</p>
+<p>We defined <em>pseudoconsciousness</em> as "<em>addiction</em> to information". To be conscious of one's situation is, of course, a genuine need and part of our <em>wholeness</em>. But consciousness can be drowned in images, facts and data. We can have the <em>sensation</em> of knowing, without knowing what we really <em>need</em> to know.</p>
-<blockquote>And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, "Yes," said Diogenes, "stand a little out of my sun."</blockquote>
+<h3><em>Religion</em></h3>
-<p>In his earlier mentioned [http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Foucault,Michel/Foucault%20-%20Discourse%20and%20truth.pdf lectures about "parrhesia"], Foucault tells a longer and more interesting story—where Diogenes (who has the most simple lifestyle one could imagine) tells Alexander (the ruler of the world) that he is "pursuing happiness" in a wrong direction. You are not free, Alexander, Diogenes tells him; you live your life in fear; you hold onto your royal role by force:</p>
+<p>In "Physics and Philosophy" Werner Heisenberg described some of the consequences of the <em>narrow frame</em>:</p>
-<blockquote>" I have an idea, however, that you not only go about fully armed but even sleep that way. Do you not know that is a sign of fear in a man for him to carry arms? And no man who is afraid would ever have a chance to become king any more than a slave would."</blockquote>
+<blockquote>It was especially difficult to find in this framework room for those parts of reality tht had been the object of the traditional religion and seemed now more or less only imaginary. Therefore, in those European countries in which one was wont to follow the ideas up to their extreme consequences, and open hostility of science toward religion developed (...). Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind.</blockquote>
+<p>If you too were influenced by the <em>narrow frame</em>, consider our way of defining concepts as 'recycling'—as a way to give old words new meanings; as thereby restoring them to the function they need to have "in the post-traditional cosmopolitan world". </p>
-<h3>Alienation</h3>
+<p>A role of religion in world traditions has been to connect an individual to an ethical ideal, and individuals together in a community. This role is pointed to by the etymological meaning of this concept, which is "re-connection".</p>
-<blockquote>This theme offers to reconcile Karl Marx with "the 1%", the Western philosophical tradition with the Oriental ones, and the radical left with Christianity.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>What serves this role in <em>modern</em> culture?</blockquote>
-<p>The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy introduces "alienation" in a way that is easily integrated in the <em>order of things</em> represented by <em>holotopia</em>: </p>
+<p>We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined <em>religion</em> as "reconnection with the <em>archetype</em>". We further adapted Carl Jung's keyword, and defined <em>archetype</em> as whatever in our psychological makeup may compel us to <em>transcend</em> the narrow limits of self-interest; to overcome [[convenience|<em>convenience</em>]]. "Heroism",  "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth" and "love" are examples. </p>
-<blockquote>"The concept of alienation identifies a distinct kind of psychological or social ill; namely, one involving a problematic separation between a self and other that properly belong together."</blockquote>
-<p>Or to paraphrase this in the vernacular of <em>holotopia</em>:</p>
+<blockquote>Imagine a world where truth, love, beauty, justice... bind us to our purpose; and to each other!</blockquote>
-<blockquote> Alienation is what separates us from <em>wholeness</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>But isn't religion a belief system? And an institution?</p>
-<p>We offer the Hegel-Marx-Debord <em>thread</em> as a way put the ball in play for a conversation about this theme. This <em>thread</em> has not yet been written, so we here sketch it briefly.</p>
+<p>"The Agony and the Ecstasy" is Irving Stone's biographical novel and a film, where the agony and the ecstasy are what accompanied Michelangelo's creative process while painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling. And of course what accompanies a deep creative process of any kind. Pope Julius II appears in the story as he was—as "Warrior Pope". He, however, <em>did</em> exercise piety—by enabling Michelangelo to complete <em>his</em> work. Pope Julius created a <em>space</em> where the artist could deliver his gifts. Julius knew, and so did Michelangelo, that it is <em>the artist</em> that God speaks through. </p>
-<p>To Hegel, "alienation" was a life-long pursuit. The way we see the world is subject to errors, Hegel observed; so we are incapable of seeing things whole, in order to make them whole. Hegel undertook to provide a remedy, by developing a <em>philosophical method</em>.</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>Marx continued Hegel's pursuit in an entirely different way. Having seen the abysmal conditions that the mid-19th century workers lived in, he grew diffident of philosophizing and of his own class background. The working class—the majority of humans—cannot pursue <em>wholeness</em>, because they must labor under conditions that someone else created for them. Science liberated us from so many things, Marx also observed, in the spirit of his time—why not apply its causal thinking to the <em>societal</em> ills as well? Logically, he identified "expropriation" as necessary goal; and a revolution as necessary means. Seeing that the religion hindered the working class from fulfilling its historical revolutionary role, Marx chose to disqualify it by calling it "the opium of the people".</p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Ten themes|<em>Ten themes</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[Ten themes|<em>ten themes</em>]] offer relevant and engaging things to talk about.</blockquote>
-<p>Marx was of course in many ways right; but he made two errors. The first we'll easily forgive him, if we take into account that he too, unavoidably perhaps for a rational thinker in his age, looked at the world through the <em>narrow frame</em>: He sidestepped "human quality",  and adopted "instrumental thinking". Where Marx's agenda was successful,  "the dictatorship of the proletariat" ended up being only—the dictatorship! In the rest of world, the "left" understood that to have power, it must align itself with <em>power structure</em>—and became just another "right"!</p>
+<p>At the same time they illustrate <em>how different</em> our conversations will be, when 'the light' has been turned on.</p>
-<p>The second error Marx made was to ignore that <em>also the capitalists</em> were victims of <em>power structure</em>. <em>They too</em> would benefit from pursuing <em>wholeness</em> instead of power and money. Gandhi, of course, saw that, and that was his great contribution to the methodology of group conflict resolution.  But Gandhi's thinking was of holistic-Oriental, not instrumental. </p>
+<p>We selected [[Ten themes|<em>ten themes</em>]] to prime and energize the <em>dialogs</em>. They correspond to the ten lines that join the <em>five insights</em> pairwise in a pentagram. Here are some highlights.</p>
-<p>Having failed to see there was a "winning without fighting" strategy—the left and remained on the losing side of the power scale until this day.</p>
+<h3>How to put an end to war?</h3>
-<p>An interesting side effect of this development was that, having bing disowned by the "left", Christ became an emblem of the "right"—which is ironic: Jesus was a revolutionary! His only reported act of violence was  "expelling the money changers from the temple of God".</p>
+<blockquote>What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war?</blockquote>
-<p>Guy Debord added to this theme a whole new chapter, by observing that the immersive audio-visual technology gave to alienation a whole new medium and course—which Marx could not have possibly predicted. </p>
+<p>In the context of <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em>, this conversation about the age-old theme is bound to be <em>completely</em> different from the ones we've had before.</p>
-<p>By placing this conversation in the context of the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight on the one side, and the <em>power structure</em> insight on the other, we recognize the <em>power structure</em>—which includes all of us—as "enemy"; and <em>wholeness</em>—for all of us—as goal.</p>
+<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight allows us to recognize the war as an extreme case of the general dynamic it describes—where one person's ambition to expand "his" 'symbolic turf' is paid for with hacked human bodies, destroyed homes, and unthinkable suffering. This conversation may then focus on the various instruments of <em>socialization</em> (through which our duty, love, heroism, honor,... are appropriated), which have always been core elements of "culture". The <em>socialized reality</em> insight may then help us understand—and also deconstruct—the mechanism that makes the unlikely bargain of war possible.</p>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="Education"></span>
-<h3>Enlightenment 2.0</h3>
+<p>The <em>power structure</em> insight illuminates the same scene from a different angle—where we see that the war's insane logic <em>does</em> make sense; that the war <em>does</em> make the <em>power structure</em> (kings and their armies; or the government contractors and the money landers) more powerful.</p>
-<p>By placing this conversation about the reissue of "enlightenment" in the context of the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight and the <em>collective mind</em> insight, two most interesting venues for transdisciplinary cross-fertilization are opened up.</p>
+<p>A look at a science fiction movie may show the limits of our imagination—which allow only the technology to advance. And keep culture and values on the "dark side"—although we've  <em>already</em> past well beyond what such one-sided evolution can sustain.</p>
-<p>One of them is to use <em>knowledge federation</em> and contemporary media technology, powered by artistic and other techniques, to <em>federate</em> the kind of insights that can make the <em>convenience paradox</em> transparent, and inform "a great cultural revival".</p>
+<p>The history too will need to be rewritten—and instead of talking about the kings and their "victories", tell us about sick ambition and suffering; and about the failed attempts to <em>transform</em> humanity's evolution.</p>
-<p>The other one is to use the insights into the nature of human <em>wholeness</em> to inform the development and use of contemporary media technology. How do computer games, and the ubiquitous advertising, <em>really</em> affect us? In [[Intuitive introduction to systemic thinking]] we offered a couple of further interesting historical reference points, to motivate a reflection about this theme.</p>
+<h3>Zero to one</h3>
-<p>Here Gregory Bateson's important keyword "the ecology of the mind", and Neil Postman's closely related one "media ecology", can set the stage for <em>federating</em> a human ecology that will make us spirited and <em>enlightened</em>, not despondent and dazzled.</p>
+<blockquote>This conversation is about education.</blockquote>
+<p>It is through the medium of education that a culture reproduces itself and evolves. Education is a [http://holoscope.org/CONVERSATIONS#Donella systemic leverage point] that <em>holotopia</em> must not overlook. </p>
-<h3>Academia quo vadis?</h3>
+<p>By placing it in the context of <em>narrow frame</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>,  we look at education from <em>this</em> specific angle:</p>
-<p>This title is reserved for the <em>academic</em> self-reflective <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>, about the university's social role, and future.</p>
+<blockquote>Is education socializing us into an obsolete worldview?</blockquote>
-<p>A number of 20th century thinkers claimed that the development of transdisciplinarity was necessary; Erich Jantsch, for instance, who saw the "[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00145222 inter- and transdisciplinary university]" as <em>the</em> core element of our society's "steering and control', <em>necessary</em> if our civilization will gain control over its newly acquired power, and steer a viable course;  Jean Piaget saw it from the point of view of cognitive psychology (although Piaget is usually credited for coining  this keyword, Jantsch may have done that before him); Werner Heisenberg saw it from the <em>fundamental</em> angle of "physics and philosophy", as we have seen. </p>
+<blockquote>What would education be like if it had human development as goal?</blockquote>
-<p>By placing the conversation about the <em>academia</em>'s future in the context of the <em>socialized reality</em> insight and the <em>narrow frame</em> insight, and in that way making it <em>informed</em> by a variety of more detailed insights, we showed that the epistemological and methodological developments that took place in the last century <em>enable</em>  transdisciplinarity; that its development can be seen as the natural and necessary next step in the university institution's evolution; and that our global condition <em>mandates</em> that we take that step.</p>
+<p>By giving it this title, "zero to one", we want to ask the question that Sir Ken Robison posed at TED: </p>
+<blockquote> Do schools kill creativity?</blockquote>
-<p>Jey Hillel Bernstein wrote in [http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/510/412 a more recent survey]:</p>
+<p>The title we borrowed from Peter Thiel, to look at this question from an angle that the <em>holotopians</em> are most interested in: We've been prodigiously creative in taking things 'from one to many' (improving things that already exist, and replicating them in large numbers); ye we are notoriously incapable of conceiving things that <em>do not</em> exist. But isn't <em>that</em> what changing a paradigm is about?</p>
-<blockquote>"In simultaneously studying multiple levels of, and angles on, reality, transdisciplinary work provides an intriguing potential to invigorate scholarly and scientific inquiry both in and outside the academy."</blockquote>
+<blockquote>Is <em>education</em> making us unable to change course?</blockquote>
-<p>This conversation may take a number of different directions.</p>
+<p>The most <em>interesting</em> question, in <em>holotopia</em> context, is about education's principle of operation. The [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/ Tesla and the Nature of Creativity <em>prototype</em>] showed that creative imagination (the ability to constructs complex things that don't exist) seems to depend on a gradual, annealing-like process. What if the ability to <em>comprehend</em> complex things too demands that we <em>let the mind</em>  construct? </p>
-<p>One of them is to be a dialog about <em>knowledge federation</em> as a concrete <em>prototype</em> of a "transdiscipline". Such a dialog is indeed <em>the</em> true intent of our proposal; we are not proposing another methodological and institutional 'dead body'—but a way for the university to <em>evolve</em> its institutional organization and its methods, by <em>federating</em> insights into an evolving <em>prototype</em>.</p>
+<p>Of course"pushing" information on students (instead of letting them acquire it through "pull") was the only way possible when information was scarce, and people had to come to a university to access it. But that is no longer the case! [https://youtu.be/LeaAHv4UTI8?t=832 Hear Michael Wesch], and then join us in co-creating an answer to <em>this</em> pivotal question:</p>
-<p>A completely one would be to discuss the university's <em>ethical</em> norms and guidance. Should we be pursuing our careers in traditional disciplines? Or consider ourselves as parts in a larger whole, and adapt to that role? </p>
+<blockquote>Is our education's very <em>principle of operation</em> obsolete?</blockquote>
-<p>This particular approach to our theme, however, also has a deeper meaning; and that's the one that its title is pointing to. Nearly two thousand years ago the ethical and institutional foundation of the Roman Empire was shaking, and the Christian Church stepped into the role of a guiding light. Can the university assume that role today?</p>
-</div> </div>
+<h3>Alienation</h3>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote>This theme offers a way to reconcile Karl Marx with "the 1%", and the radical left with Christianity.</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>Our stories are [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. This in principle journalistic technique helps us render academic and other insights in a way that makes them palatable to public, and usable to artists and journalists. A <em>vignette</em> is a <em>meme</em>, which may do more than convey ideas.</p>
-<p>We here illustrate this technique by a single example, [[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart]]. In a fractal-like way, this story illustrates some of the "incredible" sides of the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]], notably its difficulty to be seen and understood. The story will be told in the second book of the Holotopia series (with title "Systemic Innovation" and subtitle "Cybernetics of Democracy"), and here we give only highlights.</p>
+<p>By having the <em>convenience paradox</em> and the <em>power structure</em> insights as context, this theme allows us to understand that power play distanced <em>all of us</em> from <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
-<p>Having told variants of that story multiple times, we found several ways to begin it. One of them—which we used to launch the "Doug Engelbart´s Unfinished Revolution - The Program for the Future" PhD seminar at the University of Oslo, and the "Leadership of Systemic Innovation" PhD program at the Buenos Aires Institute of Technology—is to frame it as a puzzle: The inventor whose inventions marked the computer era, whom the Silicon Valley recognized as its [[giant|<em>giant</em>]] in residence, died in 2013 feeling that he had failed (we offer [https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnq6wau5at6904/1.%20DE%20Story.m4v?dl=0 this fifteen-minute recording], and apologize for the echo). In 2010, Engelbart answered the question "How much of your ideas, Doug, have been implemented?" half-jokingly, by "3.6%". </p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> wins without fighting—by <em>co-opting</em> the powerful.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>What is the remaining "96.4%"? What Engelbart's game-changing ideas do we still ignore?</blockquote>
+<h3>Enlightenment 2.0</h3>
-<p>Another way is to tell the story chronologically: In December 1950, a 25-year old engineer was looking at his future career: He had excellent education; he was employed by (what later became) NASA; he was engaged to be married... He saw his future as a straight path to retirement. And he didn't like what he saw. "A man must have a purpose!" Engelbart observed. So right there and then he decided that he would give his career a purpose that would  maximize its benefits to mankind. </p>
+<p>By placing the conversation about the impending Enlightenment-like change in the context of the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight and the <em>collective mind</em> insight, two opportunities for transdisciplinary cross-fertilization are opened up.</p>
-<p>Engelbart spent three month thinking about the best way to do that. Then he had an epiphany.</p>
-<p>
+<p>One of them takes advantage of the media technology—to create media material that helps us "change course", by making the <em>convenience paradox</em> transparent. </p>
-[[File:DEthinking.jpeg]]<br>
-<small>Engelbart's thinking, which led to his epiphany, was manifestly systemic.</small>
-</p>
-<blockquote>Did Engelbart really find <em>the</em> best way to improve the human condition?</blockquote>
+<p>The other one applies the insights about <em>wholeness</em>—to develop media use that <em>supports</em> wholeness.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:DEtitle.jpeg]]<br>
-<small>The title slide of Engelbart's presentation at Google (inserted into Knowledge Federation's template).</small>
-</p>
-<p>The third way is to begin at the end—and tell about Engelbart's "A Call to Action" panel presentation at Google, in 2007; as we did in [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Engelbart this blog report]. Doug was then at the end of his career, ready to give his last message to the world. But somehow—and no doubt <em>incredibly</em>—the title slide and with it his "call to action"; and the first four slides, which provided the necessary context for understanding the rest—<em>were not even shown</em>! [https://youtu.be/xQx-tuW9A4Q The Youtube page with the recording of this event] bears the title "Inventing the Computer Mouse". Is <em>that</em> the achievement by which Engelbart should be remembered?</p>
+<h3>Academia quo vadis?</h3>
-<blockquote>What Engelbart contributed was the <em>elephant</em>, not (just) the mouse!</blockquote>
+<p>This title is reserved for the <em>academic</em> self-reflective <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
+<p>By placing that conversation between the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em>, the imperative of academic transformation (that "the university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing society's capability for continuous self-renewal", as Erich Jantsch pointed out) is made transparent.</p>
-<p>The Incredible History of Doug is the story of a <em>contemporary</em> Galilei—who is kept 'in house arrest' by the narrowness of our vision.</p>
+<blockquote>Is <em>transdisciplinarity</em> the university institution's future?</blockquote>
-<blockquote>Its <em>incredible</em> side mirrors the rest of us—as a generation of people who have become so admirably technology-savvy; and so <em>incredibly</em> idea-blind!</blockquote>
+<p>This conversation should not avoid to look at the humanistic side of its theme.</p>
-<p>Wikipedia illustrates this vividly, by writing (in its [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos article about "The Mother of All Demos"]): "Prior to the demonstration, a significant portion of the computer science community thought Engelbart was "a crackpot"." Yes, the demonstration was an impressive feat of technology; the ideas that were behind it are still ignored. </p>
-<blockquote>So what <em>were</em> Engelbart's important ideas?</blockquote>
+<p>The <em>homo ludens academicus</em> is a subspecies whose existence is predicted by the theory advanced with the <em>socialized reality</em> insight, which contradicts the conventional wisdom. Its discovery—for which a genuine self-reflective <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em> could be a suitable experiment—would confirm the principle that the evolution of human <em>systems</em> must <em>not</em> be abandoned to "the survival of fittest". Then the university could <em>create</em> "a way to change course"—by making "structural changes with itself".</p>
-<p>One of them we have seen: The <em>collective mind</em> <em>paradigm</em>. To give our systems the faculty of vision—and make them, and us, capable of following a sane course. That idea we also offered as the solution to our "puzzle" (hear [https://www.dropbox.com/s/tyf1705t4hvk05s/2.%20DE%20Vision.m4v?dl=0 this recording]).</p>
+<p>Two millennia ago, when the foundations of the Roman Empire were shaking, the Christian Church stepped into the role of an ethical guiding light. </p>
-<blockquote>But there was an even larger one.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>Can <em>the university</em> enable our next ethical transformation—by liberating us from an antiquated way of comprehending the world?</blockquote>
-<p>In 1962, six years before Jantsch and others would convene in Bellatgio, Italy, Engelbart contributed an original method for <em>systemic innovation</em>. It was the very "evolutionary guidance" that our society was in need for..</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>Let us illustrate it by using it to explain Engelbart's "call to action".</p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The stories are a way to make insights accessible and clear.</blockquote>
+<p>These stories are [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. This in principle journalistic technique helps us render academic and other insights in a way that makes them palatable to public, and usable to artists and journalists. Being a <em>meme</em>, a <em>vignette</em> can do more than convey ideas.</p>
-<p>
+<p>We illustrate this technique by a single example, [[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart]].</p>
-[[File:DEcapabilities.jpeg]]<br>
-<small>Engelbart used this slide to explain his <em>systemic innovation</em> method.</small>
-</p>
-<p>Engelbart's method, which he called "augmentation", was based on what he called "capability hierarchy". You'll understand it if you imagine a human being with no technology or culture—and all the rest comprising various ways to "augment" his innate capabilities, individual <em>and</em> collective. The capability hierarchy has two sides or <em>aspects</em>, the "human system" and the "tool system". The capability to communicate in writing, for example, requires certain tool system components such as the clay tablets or the printing press; and certain human system components such as literacy and education. </p>
+<blockquote>The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart is a <em>modern</em> version of 'Galilei in house arrest'.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>A good way to innovate, Engelbart observed, is by identifying a capability that has become necessary; and the human system and tool system components that would make it possible.</blockquote>
+<p>It shows who, or <em>what</em>, holds 'Galilei in house arrest' today.</p>
-<p>It was in this way that Engelbart identified the capability "to cope with the complexity and urgency of problems" as the one which must be given priority.</p>
+<p>As summarized in [[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart|the article]], Engelbart's contributions to the emerging <em>paradigm</em> were crucial. Erich Jantsch wrote:</p>
+<blockquote>"The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it. With technology having become the most powerful change agent in our society, decisive battles will be won or lost by the measure of how seriously we take the challenge of restructuring the “joint systems” of society and technology."</blockquote>
-<p>And the network-interconnected interactive digital media technology as the enabling tool.</p>
+<blockquote>Engelbart contributed means to secure <em>decisive</em> victories in those "decisive battles".</blockquote>
-<blockquote>What was still missing—and what his call to action was about—was the capability to "bootstrap" the corresponding "human system" change.</blockquote>
+<p>Even <em>more</em> relevant and interesting is, however, what this story tells about ourselves.</p>
-<p>But isn't that what we've been talking about all along?</p>
+<blockquote>As part of the <em>mirror</em>, The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart reflects what we must see and change about <em>ourselves</em> to be able to "change course".</blockquote>
-<p>These were, however, Engelbart's largest and most basic ideas—<em>in the context of which</em> his numerous technical inventions must be understood. We mention two of them as examples.</p>
+<p>The setting was like of an experiment: The Silicon Valley's [[giant|<em>giant</em>]] in residence, already recognized and celebrated as that, offered <em>the</em> most innovative among us the <em>ideas</em> that would change the world.</p>
-<p>The idea of the "open hyperdocument system" can be comprehended if we think about document processing as it is today: Microsoft Word, Adobe Photoshop... Those are tools that
+<p>We couldn't even hear him.</p>
-<ul>
+<blockquote>This 'experiment' showed how <em>incredibly</em> idea-blind we've become.</blockquote>
-<li>create and process <em>traditional document types</em> (books, articles, photographs...)</li>
-<li>by using <em>proprietary document formats</em></li>
-</ul>
-The open hyperdocument system is a collection of <em>interoperable</em> media tools, <em>which can be combined together</em> as one would combine Lego blocks, to create any multimedia document format and  workflow one might be able to imagine. </p>
-<blockquote>The open hyperdocument system is what is needed to enable the knowledge work media and processes to evolve—and to enable <em>us</em> to substitute 'the lightbulb' for 'the candle'.</blockquote>
-<p>Engelbart experimented extensively with hierarchical and flexible information representation—which is, as we have seen, what 'the lightbulb' needs to be like.</p>
-<p>The second example we want to mention is a collection of keywords and templates for knowledge-work infrastructures that may compose a <em>collective mind</em>. Examples are the "networked improvement community" and the "A, B and C levels" of creative activity. Any human activity has the hands-on "A-level", where people for instance make shoes, and the "B-level" where they <em>improve</em> the shoes and the shoe making. The goal of the "C-level" activity is to improve the improvers. Engelbart observed that while B-level activities tend to be task-specific and hence different from one other, the  C-level activities tend to be uniform across applications; and that this commonality of structure offered an uncommonly fertile ground for creative action. Engelbart envisioned that the B-level work would be organized in terms of "networked improvement communities" or "NICs"; and that the C-level work would be structured as a "NIC of NICs".</p>
-<p>Knowledge Federation prototypes this idea.</p>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 756: / Line 754: @@
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>elephant</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[elephant]] points to a quantum leap in relevance and interest—when academic and other insights are presented <em>in the context of</em> "a great cultural revival".</blockquote>
 <p>
 [[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
 <small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
 </p>
-<blockquote>The role of this metaphorical image, of an invisible [[elephant|<em>elephant</em>]], is to point to a quantum leap in relevance and interest, which specific academic and other insights can acquire when presented <em>in the context of</em> "a great cultural revival".</blockquote>
 <p>There is an "elephant in the room", waiting to be discovered.</p>
-<p>Imagine the 20th century's thinkers touching this <em>elephant</em>: We hear them talk about "the fan", "the water hose" and "the tree trunk". But they don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
+<p>The frontier thinkers have been touching him, and describing him excitedly in the jargon of their discipline. We heard them talk about "the fan", "the water hose" and "the tree trunk". But they didn't make sense and we ignored them.</p>
-<p>Everything changes when we realize that what they are really talking about are 'the ear', 'the trunk' and 'the leg' of an immensely large and exotic animal—which nobody has yet seen!</p>
+<blockquote>This thoroughly changes when we realize that they described 'the ear', 'the trunk' and 'the leg' of an 'exotic animal'—which nobody has as yet seen!</blockquote>
-<blockquote>To make headway toward <em>holotopia</em>, we <em>orchestrate</em> 'connecting the dots'.</blockquote>
+<p>We make it possible to 'connect the dots' and <em>see</em> the <em>elephant</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>By combining the <em>elephant</em> with [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] we offer a new notion of rigor to the study of cultural artifacts.</blockquote>
-<p>By manifesting the <em>elephant</em>, we restore agency to information and power to knowledge.</p>
+<p>The structuralists attempted that in a different way. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts by successfully arguing that cultural artifacts <em>have no</em> "real meaning"; and making meanings open to interpretation. </p>
-<p>The structuralists undertook to bring rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts, by observing that <em>there is no</em> such thing as "real meaning"; and that the meaning of cultural artifacts is open to interpretation. We can now take this evolution a step further.</p>
+<blockquote>We propose to consider cultural artifacts as 'dots' to be connected.</blockquote>
-<p>What interests us is not what, for instance, Bourdieu "really saw" and wanted to communicate; with the post-structuralists, we acknowledge that even Bourdieu would not be able to tell us that, if he were still around. Yet he undoubtedly <em>saw something</em> that invited a different way to see the world; and undertook to understand it and communicate it by taking recourse to the only <em>paraigm</em> that was available—the <em>old</em> one.</p>
+<p>We don't, for instance, approach Bourdieu's theory by fitting it into a "reality picture". We adapt it as a piece in a completely <em>new</em> 'puzzle'.</p>
-<blockquote>We give the study of cultural artifacts <em>new</em> relevance and rigor—by considering them as signs on the road, which point to a <em>paradigm</em> that now wants to emerge.</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Books and publishing</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Book launches punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a <em>dialog</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>Does the book still have a future?</p>
+<p>In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman (who founded "media ecology") left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" (to borrow Gregory Bateson's similarly potent idea) than the audio-visual media do: It gives us a chance to <em>reflect</em>. </p>
+<p>We, however, embed the book in an 'ecosystem' of media. By publishing a book we 'break ice' and place a theme—which may or may not be one of our <em>ten themes</em>—into the focus of the public eye. We then let our <em>collective mind</em> digest and further develop the proposed ideas; and by doing that—develop <em>itself</em>!</p>
+<p>In this way, a loop is closed through which an author's insights are improved by <em>collective</em> creativity and knowledge—leading, ultimately, to a new and better edition of the book.</p>
+<h3>Liberation</h3>
+<p>The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as the first in the series.</p>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="Prototypes"></span>
+<p>A metaphor may help us see why this particular theme and book are especially well suited as a tactical asset, for breaking ice and launching the <em>holotopia</em> dialogs. The recipe for a successful animated feature film is to make it for <em>two</em> audiences: the kids <em>and</em> the grownups. As the excerpt from The Incredibles we shared above might illustrate, the kids get the action; the grownups get the metaphors and the dialogs.</p>
+<p>So it is with this book. To the media it offers material that rubs so hard against people's passions and beliefs that it can hardly be ignored. And to more mature audiences—it offers the <em>holotopia</em> <em>meme</em>. </p>
+<blockquote>The age-old conflict between science and religion is resolved by <em>evolving</em> both science and religion.</blockquote>
+</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Keywords</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>A warning reaches us from sociology.</p>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>
-<p>
+[[prototype|<em>Prototypes</em>]] <em>federate</em> insights by weaving them into the fabric of reality.</blockquote>
-[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>Beck explained his admonition:</p>
-<blockquote>
-"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of <em>categories and basic assumptions</em> of classical social, cultural and political sciences."
-</blockquote>
-<p>Isn't this a <em>wonderful</em> way to combine together <em>several</em> of our insights!</p>
-<p>The message of the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> to begin with—that our traditional concepts will not serve us to understand and handle the post-traditional, fast-changing realities that surround us. That our inherited ways of looking at the world keep us driving by looking at rear-view mirror, as McLuhan phrased it, or in <em>socialized reality</em> as we did. And then the "iron cage" metaphor also points to the disempowerment we attempted to illuminate by elaborating on the all-important relationship between <em>socialized reality</em> and <em>power structure</em>. </p>
-<p>We proposed the creation of [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] as remedy.  By applying [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]], we can <em>create</em> completely new ways of looking at the world; we can give our old concepts new meanings. <p>
+<p><em>They</em>
+<ul>
-<p>An example we have seen (while discussing the <em>socialized reality</em> insight) is the definition of <em>design</em> as "alternative to <em>tradition</em>". This definition alone allows us "to understand the transformation into the post-traditional cosmopolitan world we live in today" in a way that shows how our thinking and acting needs to change. In a post-<em>traditional</em> culture we can no longer assume that our culture is taking us to <em>wholeness</em>; we must take charge—by consciously <em>making things whole</em>. Keywords such as <em>design</em>, and <em>systemic innovation</em>, mean in essence exactly that—how our thinking and acting needs to change in our new situation. </p>
+<li>restore the connection between information and action, by creating a feedback loop through which information can impact <em>systems</em></li>
+<li>restore systemic <em>wholeness</em>, by sowing [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]] together</li>
+</ul> </p>
-<blockquote>The very <em>creation</em> of [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]], by using [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]], is the way to <em>design</em> concepts. It is the handling of language that suits the post-traditional order of things—just as <em>reification</em> is the approach that the <em>tradition</em> depends on.</blockquote>
-<p>Our collection of <em>keywords</em>—once it is organized and presented—will provide an excellent entry point to <em>holotopia</em> as a whole. We here discuss only three—which will illustrate in a fractal-like way illustrate a spectrum of issues that the creation of [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] addresses.</p>
+<p>By rendering results of creative work as challenge—resolution pairs, <em>design patterns</em> make them adaptable to new applications. Each [[design pattern|<em>design pattern</em>]] constitutes a discovery—of a specific way in which a <em>system</em>, and world at large, can be made more <em>whole</em>.</p>
-<h3><em>Culture</em></h3>
+<blockquote>What difference would be made, if the principle "make things <em>whole</em>" guided innovation?</blockquote>
-<p>In "Culture as Praxis", Zygmunt Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and concluded that they are too diverse to be reconciled.</p>
+<p>We point to an answer by these examples.</p>
-<blockquote>We do not know what "culture" means!</blockquote>
+<h3>Education</h3>
-<p>Not a good venture point for developing culture as <em>praxis</em> (informed practice).</p>
+<p>The Collaborology 2016 educational <em>prototype</em>, to whose subject and purpose we pointed by [https://iuc.hr/IucAdmin/Server/downloads/Collaborology2016.pdf this course flyer], exhibited solutions to a number of challenges that were repeatedly voiced by education innovators. In addition, its [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]] showed how education can be adapted to <em>holotopia</em>'s purpose. </p>
-<p>The <em>keywords</em> do not tell us what the defined concept "really means". Rather, a <em>keyword</em> defines a way of looking or <em>scope</em>. We may also think of it as a projection plane, where we project the thing being defined to see one of its sides or [[aspect|<em>aspects</em>]]. </p>
+<p>Most of Collaborology's <em>design patterns</em> were developed and tested within its precursor, [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Misc/ID-flyer.pdf University of Oslo Information Design course]. </p>
-<blockquote>Our definition of <em>culture</em> defines an <em>aspect</em> of culture.</blockquote>
+<p><b>Education is flexible</b>. In a fast-changing world, education cannot be a once-in-a-lifetime affair. And in a world that <em>has to</em> change, it cannot teach only traditional professions. In Collaborology, the students learn an <em>emerging</em> profession. </p>
-<p>We defined  <em>culture</em> as "<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>", and <em>cultivation</em> by analogy with planting and watering a seed (which suits also the etymology of "culture") . In this way we defined a specific <em>way of looking</em> at culture, and pointed to its specific <em>aspect</em>—exactly the one that we tended to ignore, while we looked at it through the <em>narrow frame</em>. No amount of dissecting and studying a seed would suggest that it needs to be planted and watered; the difference between an apple eaten up and the seeds thrown away—and a tree full of apples each Fall—is made by relying on the <em>experience</em> of others who have undergone this process, and seen it work.</p>
+<blockquote>Learning is by "pull", by 'connecting the dots'.</blockquote>
-<p>There is, however, an obvious difference between the two kinds of cultivation, the agricultural and cultural one: In this latter one, both 'seeds' and 'trees' are inside ourselves, and hence invisible. This has historically presented an insurmountable challenge, to communicate cultural insights. But to us this is also a most wonderful <em>opportunity</em>—because we have undertaken to <em>develop</em> communication consciously, by tailoring it to what needs to be communicated.</p>
-<p>Béla H. Bánáthy opened "Guided Evolution of Society" by saying:</p>
+<p>The students learn <em>what</em> they need, <em>when</em> they need it.</p>
-<blockquote>In the course of the evolutionary journey of our species, there have been three seminal events. The first occurred some seven million years ago, when our humanoid ancestors silently entered on the evolutionary scene. Their journey toward the second crucial event lasted more than six million years, when—as the greatest event of our evolutionary history—<em>Homo sapiens sapiens</em>, started <em>the human revolution</em>, the revolutionary process of <em>cultural evolution</em>. Today, we have arrived at the threshold of the third revolution: the <em>revolution of conscious evolution</em>, where it becomes our responsibility to enter into the evolutionary design space and guide the evolutionary journey of our species.</blockquote>
+<p><b>Education is active</b>. The course is conceived as a design project, where the students and the instructors co-create learning resources. Collaboration toward systemic <em>wholeness</em> is not only taught, but also <em>practiced</em>. Instead of only receiving knowledge, students become a component in a knowledge-work ecosystem —where they serve as 'bacteria', recycling 'nutrients' from academic 'deposits'.</p>
-<p>It seems only fitting that this "third revolution" will require that we adapt the way we use our language as well.</p>
+<p><b>Education is internationally <em>federated</em></b>. Collaborology is created and taught by an international network of instructors and designers, and offered to learners worldwide. An instructor creates a lecture, not a course.</p>
+<blockquote>Economies of scale result, which drastically reduce workload. </blockquote>
-<h3><em>Addiction</em></h3>
-<p>Here too we want to emphasize <em>the way</em> of defining <em>addiction</em>. The traditional definitions would tend to identify certain activities such as gambling, or certain things such as opiates, as addictions. But selling addictions is a famously lucrative yet destructive line of business. What will hinder businesses from using new technologies and create a variety of completely <em>new</em> addictions?</p>
+<p>It becomes cost-effective to power learning by <em>new</em> technologies—why should only the game manufacturers use them?</p>
-<p>The evolution gave us senses and emotions to guide us to [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]]. The technology made it possible to deceive our senses—and create pleasurable things and activities that take us  <em>away</em> from <em>wholeness</em>.  <em>They</em> are <em>addictions</em>. The refined, industrial sugar—as the pleasurable substance extracted from a plant, which can then be added to almost anything to make it palatable—might serve as an explanatory template. </p>
+<blockquote>Collaborology provides a sustainable business model for creating and disseminating transdisciplinary knowledge of <em>any</em> theme.</blockquote>
-<p>By defining <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>, we made it possible to identify it as an <em>aspect</em> of otherwise useful activities and things. To make ourselves and our world <em>whole</em>, even subtle addiction will need to be taken care of.</p>
+<p><b>Re-design of education is technology enabled</b>. The enabling technology is called the [[domain map|<em>domain map</em>]] object. It offers solutions to a number of challenges that designers of flexible education have to face:
+<ul>
+<li>structure the curriculum and organize the learning resources—in a manner that is not a linear sequence of lectures or book chapters</li>
+<li>help the students orient themselves and create a personal learning plan—<em>before</em> they have taken the course</li>
+<li>customize the exam—by displaying the student's learning trajectory </li>
+</ul> </p>
-<p>From a large number of obvious or subtle <em>addictions</em>, we here mention only <em>pseudoconsciousness</em> defined as "<em>addiction</em> to information". Consciousness of one's situation and surroundings is, of course, a necessary condition for <em>wholeness</em>. In civilization we can, however, drown this need in facts and data, which give us the <em>sensation</em> of knowing—without telling us what we really <em>need to</em> know, in order to be or become <em>whole</em>.</p>
+<p><b>Educational <em>model</em> too is internationally <em>federated</em></b>. We developed close ties with [https://milapopovich.com/global-education-futures/ Global Education Futures Initiative]—"an international collaborative platform that brings together shapers and sherpas of global education to discuss and implement the necessary transformations of educational ecosystems for thrivable futures".  Following their first international co-creative event in Palo Alto (where international reformers and theorists of education gathered to map the directions and challenges), we shared a one-day workshop in Mei Lin Fung's house, to coordinate <em>our</em> collaboration. In 2017, the Collaborology model was presented and discussed at the World Academy of Art and Science conference Future Education 2 in Rome. The Information Design course model, and the corresponding <em>domain map</em> (which was then called "polyscopic topic map") technology were presented and discussed at the 2005 Topic Maps Research and Applications conference in Linz;  and at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning conference in Taipei, where they were invited for journal publication.</p>
+<h3>Scientific communication 1</h3>
-<h3><em>Religion</em></h3>
+<p>Tesla and the Nature of Creativity (TNC 2015) is a <em>prototype</em> showing how <em>a researcher's</em> insight can be <em>federated</em> to benefit the public. </p>
-<p>In "Physics and Philosophy" Werner Heisenberg described some of the consequences of the <em>narrow frame</em>:</p>
+<p>We described it in blog posts, [https://holoscope.info/2015/06/28/a-collective-mind-part-one/ A Collective Mind – Part One] and [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/ Tesla and the Nature of Creativity], and here only highlight two of its [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]].</p>
-<blockquote>It was especially difficult to find in this framework room for those parts of reality tht had been the object of the traditional religion and seemed now more or less only imaginary. Therefore, in those European countries in which one was wont to follow the ideas up to their extreme consequences, and open hostility of science toward religion developed (...). Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind.</blockquote>
+<p><b>Unraveling the <em>narrow frame</em></b>. Heisenberg, as we have seen, pointed out that the <em>narrow frame</em> (the "narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adopted from 19th century science) made us misapprehend core elements of culture. In the federated article, Dejan Raković explained how creativity too has been mishandled—specifically <em>the kind of</em> creativity on which our ability to "create a better world" and shift the [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] depends. This <em>prototype</em> showed how the <em>narrow frame</em> can be broadened, <em>academic</em> creativity can be raised, and <em>collective</em> creativity can be fostered—by combining the fundamental and technical interventions proposed in <em>five insights</em>.</p>
-<p>If you too happen to be affected by the <em>narrow frame</em> in this way, it may be best to consider our way of handling concepts as 'recycling'—as giving old words new meaning, and hence restoring them to the kind of function they need to perform "in the post-traditional cosmopolitan world we live in". </p>
+<p><b>Federating an author's idea</b>. An article written in an academic vernacular, of quantum physics, was transformed into a multimedia object—where its core idea was communicated by intuitive diagrams, and explained in recorded interviews with the author. A high-profile event was then organized to make the idea public, and discuss it in a dialog of experts. The idea was then embedded in a technology-enabled collective mind, implemented on Debategraph, where collective 'connecting the dots' continued.</p>
-<p>"Religion" is especially interesting to 'recycle' in this way, for two reasons. One of them is that religion in the traditional cultures served for cultivating "human quality". If you believe, as Richard Dawkins does, that religion served that function poorly, that's just another reason to take up the challenge of 'recycling' "religion" by implementing this function in a completely <em>new</em> way.</p>
+<blockquote>This <em>prototype</em> models a <em>new</em> "social life of information"—alternative to peer reviews.</blockquote>
-<p>The second reason is the etymology of "religion"—as "re" + "ligare", which suggests that "religion" is "re-connection". We may think of <em>religion</em> as connecting each of us to our purpose, and all of us into a society. </p>
-<blockquote><em>Religion</em> is <em>the</em> alternative to selfishness.</blockquote>
+<h3>Scientific communication 2</h3>
-<p>Human systems are naturally self-organizing. We have seen that when selfishness or self-centeredness is what binds us to our purpose and to each other—then the <em>power structure</em> is the result.</p>
+<p>[http://knowledgefederation.net/TLabstract.pdf Lightnouse 2016] <em>prototype</em> shows how an <em>academic community</em> can <em>federate</em> an insight. We offered it as a resolution to [http://www.knowledgefederation.net/Misc/WP.pdf Wiener's paradox].</p>
-<p>We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined <em>religion</em> as "reconnection with the <em>archetype</em>" (which harmonizes with the etymological meaning of this word). We adapted Carl Jung's favorite keyword, and defined the <em>archetype</em> as whatever may be in our psychological makeup that may empower us to <em>transcend</em> selfishness. "Heroism",  "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth" and "love" are obvious examples; and there are others. </p>
+<p><b>Federating an academic community's core insight</b>. An academic community might produce "tons of information every hour"—while the public ignores even its most <em>basic</em> achievements. The <em>federation</em> here is in three phases. In the first, the community distills and substantiates an insight. In the second, state of the art communication design is applied, to make the insight accessible. In the third, the insight is strategically made impactful. In the actual <em>prototype</em>, the first phase was performed by the International Society for the Systems Sciences, the second by Knowledge Federation's communication design team, and the third by the Green Party of Norway.</p>
-<blockquote>Imagine a world where truth, love, beauty, justice... are what binds us to our purpose, and to each other.</blockquote>
+<p><b>Unraveling the Wiener's paradox</b>. The specific question, which was posed for academic <em>federation</em>, was whether our society can rely on "free competition" or "survival of the fittest" in setting directions. Or whether information and systemic understanding must be used, as Norbert Wiener claimed—and the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> echoed.</p>
-<blockquote>Isn't that what "a great cultural revival" is all about?</blockquote>
+<blockquote>Isn't this <em>the very first</em> question our society's 'headlights' must illuminate?</blockquote>
-<p>But aren't we unduly misinterpreting "religion", when we divorce it from its institutions and beliefs, and turn it into a core element of <em>culture</em>?</p>
-<p>"The Agony and the Ecstasy" is a biographical novel and a film, where the agony and the ecstasy are what accompanied Michelangelo's creative process, while painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling. And metaphorically—what accompanies <em>every</em> deep creative act. Pope Julius II appears in the story as he was—as the "Warrior Pope". But he <em>did</em> exercise his piety—by making it possible to Michelangelo to complete his work. Julius, <em>and</em> Michelangelo</em>, both knew that it was the artist, and not the pope, that God was speaking through. And that it was the <em>artist</em>'s work that would be remembered.</p>
-<p>Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" is a classic about this theme, which showed that across geographical regions and historical periods, human cultures created myths to cultivate this important <em>archetype</em>, and reflect the dynamics of such cultivation. The hero is the archetype of an inner transformation, to enable the larger communal transformation that is the <em>holotopia</em>'s aim. </p>
+<h3>Public informing</h3>
-<p>Here again it is worth observing the interplay between "human development" and <em>power structure</em>, which shaped both history and culture: No sooner did a man <em>become</em> a hero, by making the empowering connection with the archetype—than we put a sword into his hand and sent him to kill people for us. We <em>portrey</em> a hero with a sword! The reason is, of course, that the very <em>existence</em> of a traditional community depended on the existence of the people that would not sell out when the danger presents itself. But today's warfare being a strife of human-operated technologies, heroism is no longer in demand.</p>
+<p>Barcelona Innovation System for Good Journalism, BIGJ 2011, is a <em>prototype</em> of <em>federated</em> journalism. Journalism, or public informing, is of course <em>directly</em> in the role of 'headlights'. </p>
-<blockquote>Ways to <em>separate</em> "human development" from <em>power structure</em> must now be found.</blockquote>
+<p><b><em>Federated</em> journalism.</b> A journalist working alone has no recourse but to look for sensations. In BIGJ 2011 the journalist works within a 'collective mind', in which readers, experts and communication designers too have active roles—see [https://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=132084&vt=ngraph&dc=focus this description].</p>
+<p><b><em>Designed</em> journalism.</b> What would public informing be like, if it were not <em>reified</em> as "what the journalists are doing", but <em>designed</em> to suit its all-important social role? We asked "What do the people <em>really</em> need to know—so that the society may function, and the democracy may be real?" And we drafted a public informing that applies the time-honored approach of science to <em>society</em>'s problems—see [https://holoscope.info/2013/06/05/toward-a-scientific-understanding-and-treatment-of-problems/ this explanation].</p>
-</div> </div>
+<h3>Culture</h3>
-<div class="row">
+<p>A culture is of course not only, and not even primarily <em>explicit information</em>. We sought ways in which essential <em>memes</em> ('cultural genes') can be saved from oblivion, and supported and strengthened through cross-fertilization (see [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/ME.pdf this article]).</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Books and publishing</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>Occasionally we publish books about of the above themes—to punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a <em>dialog</em>. </p>
-<p>Shall we not recreate the book as well—along with all the rest? Yes and no. In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman—who founded "media ecology"— left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" than the contemporary "immersive" audio-visual media do; it gives us a chance to <em>reflect</em>. </p>
-<p>We, however, embed the book exist in an 'ecosystem' of media. By publishing a book we 'break ice' and place a theme—which may or may not be one of our <em>ten themes</em>—into the focus of the public eye. We then let our <em>collective mind</em> digest and further develop the proposed ideas; and by doing that—develop <em>itself</em>!</p>
-<p>In this way, a loop is closed through which an author's insights are improved by <em>collective</em> creativity and knowledge—leading, ultimately, to a new and better edition of the book.</p>
+<p>We illustrate this part of <em>knowledge federation</em> by three <em>prototypes</em> in travel or tourism. Historically, <em>travel</em> was the medium for <em>meme</em> exchange. But the insuperable forces of economy changed that—and now travel is iconized by the couple on an exotic beach. The local culture figures in it as souvenir sellers and hotel personnel.</p>
-<h3>Liberation</h3>
+<p><b>Dagali 2006</b> <em>prototype</em> showed that successful high-budget tourism can be created <em>anywhere</em>—by bringing travelers in direct contact with the locals. By allowing them to <em>experience</em> what the real life in a country is like—see [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/DAGALI/DagaliProject.pdf  this description].</p>
-<p>The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as the first in the series.</p>
+<p><b>UTEA 2003</b> is a re-creation of the conventional corporate model in tourism industry to support <em>authentic</em> travel and <em>meme</em> exchange. We benefited from a venture cup to secure help from an academic adviser and a McKinsey adviser in creating [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/UTEA-bp.pdf the business plan]. The information technology's enabling role was explained in [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/UTEAportal.pdf the appendix].</p>
-<p>In a fractal-like way, this book reflects the <em>holotopia</em> as a whole. We are accustomed to think of "religion" as a firm or dogmatic <em>belief</em> in something, impervious to counter-evidence. The Liberation book turns this idea of religion inside out—so that <em>religion</em> is understood as <em>liberation</em> from not only rigidly held beliefs, but from rigidly held <em>anything</em>. </p>
-<p>The age-old conflict, between science and religion, is resolved by the book by further evolving <em>both</em> science and religion.</p>
+<p><b>Authentic Herzegovina 2014</b> showed how to revitalize and support a culture that was destroyed by war—see [http://holoscope.org/Authentic_Hercegovina this description].</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
+<h3>Art</h3>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>
-[[prototype|<em>Prototypes</em>]], as we have seen, are a way to <em>federate</em> information by weaving it directly into the fabric of everyday reality. A <em>prototype</em> can be literally anything.</p>
-<p>In the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>, everything is a <em>prototype</em>. In that way we subject <em>everything</em> to knowledge-based evolution.</p>
+<p>As journalism, art too can be transformed. And it may <em>need</em> to be transformed, if it should take its place on the creative frontier; fulfill its role in the <em>collective mind</em>. We highlight two <em>design patterns</em>.</p>
-<p>The <em>events</em> are <em>prototypes</em> we have not yet talked abou. They are multimedia and multidimensional <em>prototypes</em>—which include a variety of more specific <em>prototypes</em>. Events are used to 'punctuate the equilibrium'—to create a discontinuity in the ordinary flow of events, draw attention to a theme, create a transformative space, both physical and in media, engage people and make a difference. </p>
+<p><b>Art as space</b>. The artist no longer only creates, but creates a <em>space</em> where the public can create.</p>
-<p>In what follows we illustrate this idea by describing the <em>holotopia</em>'s Earth Sharing pilot event, which took place in June of 2018 in Bergen, Norway.</p>
+<p><b>Art <em>and</em> science</b>. The artist no longer works in isolation, but in a space illuminated by information—where <em>memes</em> that are most vital come to the fore, to be given a voice.  </p>
-<p>Vibeke Jensen, the artist who created what we are about to describe, is careful to avoid interpreting the <em>space</em>, the objects and the interaction she creates. The idea is to use them as prompts, and <em>allow</em> new meaning to emerge through association and group interaction. The interpretation we are about to give is by us others. It is, however, only <em>a</em> possible interpretation.</p>
+<p>Our Earth Sharing pilot event, which we offer as illustration, took place in June of 2018, in Kunsthall 3,14 of Bergen. Vibeke Jensen, the artist who led us, avoids interpreting her creations. They are to be used as prompts, to <em>allow</em> meaning to emerge. The interpretation we share here is a <em>possible</em> one.</p>
 <p>
 [[File:B2018-Building.JPG]]
 </p>
-<p>The physical space where the event took place was symbolic of the purpose of the event. The building used to be a bank in the old center of Bergen, and later became an art gallery. It remained to turn the gallery, <em>holotopia</em>-style, into a transformative <em>space</em>. </p>
+<p>The physical space where the event took place symbolized <em>holotopia</em>'s purpose: This building used to be a bank, and later became an art gallery. It remained to turn the gallery into a space for <em>social</em> transformation. </p>
 <p>
@@ Line 914: / Line 918: @@
 </p>
-<p>The space was upstairs—and Vibeke turned the stairs too into a symbolic object. Going up, the inscription on the stairs reads "bottom up"; going down, it reads "top down". In this way the very first thing that meets the eye is the all-important message, which defines the <em>polyscopy</em> and the <em>holoscope</em>—namely that we can reach insights in those two ways.</p>
+<p>The gallery was upstairs—and Vibeke turned the stairs into a metaphor. Going up, the inscription read "bottom up"; going down, it read "top down". From the outset, the visitors were sensitized to those two ways to connect ideas.</p>
 <p>
 [[File:Local-Global.jpg]]
 </p>
-<p>The BottomUp - TopDown intervention is a tool for shifting positions. It suggests transcendence of
+<p>The BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool then suggested to transcend fixed ways of looking, and <em>combine</em> worldviews and perspectives.</p>
-fixed relations between top and bottom, and builds awareness of the benefits of multiple points of
-view (polyscopy), and moving in-between.</p>
 <p>
@@ Line 927: / Line 929: @@
 </p>
-<p>The <em>mirror</em>—the core symbol of <em>holotopia</em> transformation—is seen almost everywhere. In particular, a one-way mirror serves as the entrance into the space that used to be the vault of the bank. One enters the vault by literally stepping through a physical mirror. Instead of money and other physical treasures, the vault is a "safe space" for reflection. The inside of the vault was not illuminated, but one could see the world outside through the semi-transparent door, and reflect on it. From the speakers in the vault one could hear edited fragments from an earlier dialog—offered as <em>information</em> to build on and develop ideas further. There was a bag with seeds hanging in the vault. </p>
+<p>A one-way mirror served as entrance to the <em>deepest</em> transformative space, which used to be a vault. The treasury could only be reached by stepping through the mirror. The 'treasure' in it were ideas, and a "safe space" to reflect. The inside of the vault was only dimly lit, by the light that penetrated from outside. A pair of speakers emitted edited fragments of past dialogs—offered for contemplation, and re-creation.</p>
 <p>
@@ Line 933: / Line 935: @@
 </p>
-<p>We like to think of the objects that populated the space as <em>furniture</em>—and give that world a <em>designed</em> meaning. When one enters a room, the furniture in the room (a sofa, a couple of armchairs...) automatically invites a certain kind of interaction. Our <em>furniture</em>, however, was <em>nothing like</em> conventional furniture; it invites to <em>recreate</em> the interaction. <em>And</em>, of course, it offers certain prompts.</p>
+<p>Think of the objects that populated the installation as 'furniture': When we enter a <em>conventional</em> room, its furniture tells us how the room is to be used,  and draws us into a stereotype. <em>This</em> 'furniture' was unlike anything we've seen! It invited us to <em>invent</em> the way we use the space; to <em>co-create</em> the way we are together.</p>
-</div> </div>
-<!-- AAAAAAA
-<p>The academic tradition did not originate as a way to pursue practical knowledge, but knowledge for its own sake. And in a manner disciplined only by [[knowledge of knowledge|<em>knowledge of knowledge</em>]]—which philosophers have been developing since antiquity.</p>
-<p>We pointed out in the opening paragraphs of this website, by highlighting the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest, that
-<blockquote>it was this <em>free</em> pursuit of knowledge that led to the <em>last</em> "great cultural revival".</blockquote>
-</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Toulmin-Vision2.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>And we asked:
-<blockquote>Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</blockquote></p>
-<p>The key to the positive answer to this question—and to <em>holotopia</em>—is in the <em>historicity</em> of "the relationship we have with knowledge".</p>
-<p>As Toulmin pointed out in "Reurn to Reason", from which the above quotation was taken, when the <em>contemporary</em> academic institutional structures and ethos were taking shape, it was the tradition and the Church that had the prerogative of telling the people what to believe in and what to do. And as the image of Galilei in house arrest may suggest—they held onto that prerogative most firmly! </p>
-<p>But censorship and prison were unable to hinder a new way of exploring the world to transpire from astrophysics, where it originated, and transform first our pursuit of knowledge in general—and then our society and culture at large.</p>
-<p>It is therefore natural that at the universities we consider the curation of this <em>approach</em> to knowledge to be our core role in our society. Being the heirs and the custodians of a tradition that has historically led to some of <em>the</em> most spectacular evolutionary leaps in human history, we remain faithful to that tradition. We do that by meticulously conforming to the methods and the themes of interests of mathematics, physics, philosophy, biology, sociology, philosophy and other traditional academic disciplines, which, we believe, <em>embody</em> the highest standards of that tradition. People can learn practical skills elsewhere. It is only at the <em>university</em> that they can acquire the highest standards of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>—and the ability to pursue knowledge effectively in <em>any</em> domain.</p>
-<p>We must ask:</p>
-<blockquote>Can the academic tradition evolve still further? </blockquote>
-<p>Can this tradition <em>once again</em> give us a completely <em>new</em> way to explore the world?</p>
-<p>Can the free pursuit of knowledge, curated by the <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, once again lead to "a great cultural revival" ?</p>
-<blockquote>Can "a great cultural revival" <em>begin</em> at the university?</blockquote>
-_______
-xxxxxxx
-now illustrate the variety of insights that are waiting to be <em>federated</em> on this <em>frontier</em>, and the variety of questions that can be asked and answered in that way. </p>
-<blockquote>2. The <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em> is counter-intuitive.</blockquote>
-<p>
-[[File:LaoTzu-vision.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>To get a glimpse of it, compare the above utterances by Lao Tzu (acclaimed as progenitor of Taoism; "tao" literally means "way"), with what Christ taught in his Sermon on the Mount. Why was Teacher Lao claiming that "the weak can defeat the strong"? Why did the Christ advise his disciples to "turn the other cheek"?</p>
-<p>Aldous Huxley's book "Perennial Philosophy" is <em>alone</em> sufficient to give an answer.  Coming from a family that gave some of Britain's leading scientists, Huxley undertook to not only <em>federate</em> some of the core insights about the <em>way</em> (by demonstrating the consistency of both the relevant practices <em>and</em> their results across historical periods and cultures), but to also make a case for the method he used, as an extension of science needed to support <em>cultural</em> evolution.</p>
-<blockquote>3. To overcome the paradox, we must <em>reverse</em> the modernity's characteristic values.</blockquote>
-<p><em>Convenience</em> must be replaced by "human development". </p>
-<p><em>Egotism</em> must be subjugated by service to larger purposes.</p>
-<p>Lao Tzu (the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>'s iconic pointer to the <em>way</em>) is often portrayed as reading a bull—which signifies that he achieved that.</p>
-<p>While this insight can easily be <em>federated</em> in the manner just described, we here point to it by a curiosity.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Huxley-vision.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>In "The Art of Seeing", Huxley observed that overcoming egotism is a necessary element of even <em>physical</em> wholeness!</p>
-<p>We may now perceive significant parts of our cultural history as a struggle between <em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em> guided by insights into the nature of the <em>way</em>—and the <em>power structure</em>–related <em>socialization</em>, aided by the attraction of <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em>. It is on the outcome of this struggle, Peccei warned us, that our future will depend. </p>
-<blockquote>What hope do we have of reversing its outcome?</blockquote>
-<p>The answer is, of course, that we now have a whole new <em>dimension</em> to work with.</p>
-<blockquote>We can <em>design</em> communication.</blockquote>
-<p>We can create media content that will communicate the <em>convenience paradox</em> in clear and convincing ways; we can guide people to an <em>informed</em> use of information; <em>and</em> we can create various elements of culture to <em>socialize</em> us or <em>cultivate</em> us accordingly. Including, of course, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>A <em>vast</em> creative frontier opens up.</blockquote>
-<p>We illustrate it here by a handful of examples.</p>
-_______
-<p>The first of the <em>five insights</em>, the <em>power structure</em>, showed that when we use "free competition" or "the survival of the fittest" to direct our efforts and our evolutionary course, then <em>we</em> end up being 'the enemy' <em>creating</em> the "problematique". We have seen that the key to "changing course" is a change of values—from <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em> to <em>wholeness</em>. We have seen (the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight) that this change of values follows when we substitute <em>federated</em> information for various forms of power-motivated <em>socialization</em>, such as advertising. </p>
-<p>The values are an easy target, if we consider that <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em> are so obviously lame that they hardly merit to be called "values". In the [[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]] detailed article, we however showed that those values inhibit also our <em>personal</em> "pursuit of happiness", profoundly and directly. And that as soon as an <em>informed</em> "pursuit of happiness" is in place, not only the direction is changed, but also a vast culture-creative frontier opens up, where the levels of human <em>wholeness</em> and fulfillment come within reach that are well beyond what the now common ways of "pursuing happiness" can achieve.</p>
-<p>Furthermore, in <em>narrow frame</em>, we have seen how a general-purpose <em>methodology</em> can be developed for doing that, on state-of-the-art academic premises.</p>
-_______
-<blockquote>Our call to action, to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and a real-life <em>praxis</em>, is a practical way to implement the changes that have become necessary. As an academic field, <em>knowledge federation</em> is conceived as the <em>academia</em>'s and the society's evolutionary organ; as a real-life <em>praxis</em>, it is the collective thinking we now need to develop.</blockquote>
-<p>
-[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>When making this call to action, we are not saying anything new; we are only echoing the call to action that <em>many</em> have made before us.</p>
-<p>We, however, extend the action they were calling for to a fully developed academic <em>paradigm</em>—and hence ground it firmly on the <em>academia</em>'s time-honored principles. And we also <em>operationalize</em> the action, by offering a complete institutional [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]]—comprising everything from the <em>epistemology</em> and methods on the one side, and an active community of practitioners and a portfolio of real-life applications on the other—and making it ready to be deployed.</p>
-_____________
-<p>Is it really true that we <em>must</em> "change course"? While this question may seem compelling, our focus will be on a related practical task:</p>
-<blockquote>The purpose of the Holotopia project is to restore our ability to "change course".</blockquote>
-<p>The fact that we <em>must</em> be able to "change course", when the circumstances demand that, can hardly be disputed. The fact that now, forty years later, The Club of Rome's call to action is still ignored and not even disputed—shows that there is some urgent work that needs to be done.</p>
-_______
-<p>Let us right away illustrate [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]] by showing how it may inform the <em>academic</em> self-reflection in front of the <em>mirror</em>, and help us resolve the self-identity paradox we are here talking about.</p>
-<p>We leave such questions for our <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>, and here conclude by some example <em>prototypes</em>—which will illustrate some of the <em>fundamental</em> interventions that become actionable on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
-<p>Our main two <em>prototypes</em>, the <em>holoscope</em> and the <em>holotopia</em>, model the academic and the social reality on the other side of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]].</p>
-<p>On the other side of the <em>mirror</em>, we create a <em>foundation</em> for truth and meaning that is a convention. We called the new method Polyscopic Modeling or <em>polyscopy</em>. While the methods are allowed to evolve freely, as <em>prototypes</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>The creation that took place in this space was the Holotopia project's inception.</blockquote>
-______________
+</div> </div>

Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

Latest revision as of 12:37, 30 September 2021

Contents

HOLOTOPIA

An Actionable Strategy

Imagine...

Our proposal

Its essence

Its substance

Its method

A vision

A difference to be made

A different way to see the future

Five insights

Power structure insight (analogy with Industrial Revolution)

Collective mind insight (analogy with Gutenberg Revolution)

Socialized reality insight (analogy with Enlightenment)

Narrow frame insight (analogy with Scientific Revolution)

Convenience paradox insight (analogy with Renaissance)

Large change is easy

The "course" is a paradigm

"A way to change course" is in academia's hands

"Human quality" is the key

A strategy

We will not solve our problems

We will not change the world

A mission

Step 1: Enabling academic evolution

Step 2: Enabling societal evolution

Tactical assets

Art

Five insights

The mirror

The dialog

Keywords

Culture

Addiction

Religion

Ten themes

How to put an end to war?

Zero to one

Alienation

Enlightenment 2.0

Academia quo vadis?

Stories

The elephant

Books and publishing

Liberation

Prototypes

Education

Scientific communication 1

Scientific communication 2

Public informing

Culture

Art